Master Index of Archived Threads


Knicks-Mets

Bret Sabermetric May 16 2006 12:11 PM

Since I lack a lot of faith that my request that Vic's implication that I am an ass in the NBF will get addressed any time soon, I'll ask it here: Am I more disgusted with the Mets than many, many, many posters are in the NBF with the Knicks? It's very close, and probably not worth the careful judging that the question requires. This is, then, yet another exhibit (I feel like Saddam's defense attorneys here) in my case that almost everything that I get castigated for around here has to be with the personal offense taken with my anti-Mets arguments, which gets cast as "abusive language," "nonsense," "crap from the past," and the all-purpose "whatever." Also it has to do with the fact the Edgy, and to lesser degree KC, has very little patience with my insistence on returning like a dog to his vomit to that yummy favorite subject of mine: The Mets and How They Came To Suck. But I beseech you to compare that to the NBF's runnning theme of How The Knicks Came to Suck, and ask what the difference is. Obviously the difference is this website doesn't really care about the Knicks and does really care about the Mets. But does that mean that I'm posting in a particularly unacceptable manner? No, it just means that the Mets come under special protection around here. Since I enjoy a good round of "Let's Expose The Hypocrites For What They Are" I bring this to your attention. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I will prepare the blindfold for my client as you deliberate.

Vic Sage May 16 2006 04:06 PM

Nothing wrong with a "why the Mets suck" thread. Its just that not all Mets threads (or as many as you may deem sufficient) need to ultimately lead to that topic. and its not necessary to expand that thread into a "why the Mets suck and why you are all idiots for being Mets fans" thread and its not necessary to expand it even further into a "why the mets suck and why you are all idiots for being Mets fans, and... hey, stop being mean to me!" thread and its not necessary to expand it even further into a "why the mets suck and why you are all idiots for being Mets fans, and... hey, stop being mean to me! NOW I'm going to be really obnoxious!" thread Oh, and about the Knicks. If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that it starts with me defending alot of Isiah's moves and arguing with others who were smarter than i and saw how bad they were from the outset. So it wasn't just a bunch of people agreeing. And despite how bad they are currently, I haven't become a NETS fan instead, and then hung around a KNICKS forum to tell all those stupid knicks fans how stupid they are for staying Knicks fans. Because i know if i did, people would feel insulted by it and i'd soon become an unwelcome presence and everything i said would be judged in that light. If i REALLY had given up on the knicks for the Nets, i'd simply start posting on a Nets thread and argue about whether Carter takes too many shots and whether Kidd is too slow now to play adequate defense, and all the other criticisms of MY team that any fan is more than willing and able to engage in.

Bret Sabermetric May 16 2006 05:09 PM

Vic Sage wrote: If you bothered to read the thread, you'd see that it starts with me defending alot of Isiah's moves and arguing with others who were smarter than i and saw how bad they were from the outset. So it wasn't just a bunch of people agreeing. But now it is? Hmmm. I wonder why you've decided it's okay to change your mind on the Knicks, but not the Mets, and why you still consider yourself a good person despite have been drawn to the dark side. Oooh, ooh, I know: it's because ] And despite how bad they are currently, I haven't become a NETS fan instead, and then hung around a KNICKS forum to tell all those stupid knicks fans how stupid they are for staying Knicks fans. Glad that works for you, Vic. Been to a lot of Knicks games this season, have you? If i told you half the stupid shit I get told justifying the mets' foolishnesss, you really think you'd constrain yourself from informing me of your view of my intelligence? We'll have to try that sometime. ] Because i know if i did, people would feel insulted by it and i'd soon become an unwelcome presence Okay, we're agreed here. Continuing to post here while no longer being a fan of the team, has IN ITSELF made me unwelcome. Even before I realized how much I disliked the Mets, I was informed by certain Mets fans (while I still considered myself one, mind you) that I was unworthy to post here since I was so disparaging of the Mets' competence. Obviously this was before I lost most of my respect for Mets' fans in general, because i still considered myself to be a mets fan, but that was no good. I was informed that I MUST be a Met -hater, which oddly enough drove me right into accepting that theretofore unacceptable proposition. Sorry I'm unable to assume the role that you deem appropriate for me. Seems to me that if you want to label me, with some injustice, as a Mets-hater, or a fair-weather fan, or a disloyal person, or a turncoat, or any one of a number of derogatory and (somewhat) inaccurate characterizations, I should be able to suggest that you have drunk deeply of the Kool Aid pitcher and are defending Mets' policies more out of defensiveness than reason. But NOOOOOO, "koolaid drinker" has become the most unclean of epithets. "Pajama-wearer" has become fighting words. Give me a fucking break, would you please? The hypocrisy with which you feel free to engage in purely personal and moronic rhetoric (not you personally, Vic) while denouncing me for milder yet still colorful language would be funny if it weren't so sad. ] If i REALLY had given up on the knicks for the Nets, i'd simply start posting on a Nets thread and argue about whether Carter takes too many shots and whether Kidd is too slow now to play adequate defense, and all the other criticisms of MY team that any fan is more than willing and able to engage in. But you see I haven't abandoned the Mets for the Yankees. I've become more of an informed critic of the Mets, while toying with a part-time interest in the Sox, and an objective viewer of some other teams. Baseball Without Hate, I like to think of it. Teams which finish out of the money for five straight years while spending more money than the U.N. will tend to come in for some criticism--that's only fair, I think. If you don't think so, show me where I'm wrong. Your vicious characterizations of the Knicks (and the character of management, ownership and players)certainly allows for a certain latitude in criticism of one's chosen team. Do you propose some sort of loyalty test for CPF posters? Isn't it sufficient that I follow them closely enough to comment about them sensibly, if not always in accordance with your own personal views? Do you see how close you are to endorsing KC's label for me as a "Kill Buzz"? As if the purpose of following a team is to enhance everyone's buzz, to get people higher and higher on some potent hallucinogen that persuades them that up is down and black is white and right is wrong? This all began with my criticism of the Mets' organization and players, remember, not the Mets' fans on the CPF. But instead of defending their indefensible team, they decided to attack me personally. Sorry if this seems too martyrly for you, but that's what happened, and it's unfortunate that they chose to attack me (and still do--or are you in denial about such posts as GYC's yesterday?) because I tend to fight back when someone starts shit with me. Now you're all self-righteous about personal attacks, being under attack now and then, but I can't take responsbility for striking back. Pity, that, huh? Being in the vast majority here tends to give you the illusion that you're right when you're dead-wrong, but that doesn't make it so.

Bret Sabermetric May 16 2006 10:52 PM

Any way, I found startling and comical similarities between the Knicks' plight and the Mets', two once-proud NY franchises that can't get themselves arrested anymore, mainly because of pig-ignorant management, bankrolled by clueless ownership, blindly pursuing a championship in the secure knowledge that NYers won't support a rebuidling effort, so they try to rebuiild by paying top-dollar to inept veterans who (sooprise, sooprise!) can't play very well anymore. In this noble effort to avoid at all costs last place for a couple of years, each team has given itself several couples of years in last place, and are now older and more deeply entrenched in a veterans' movement than when they began this process. It's true the Mets don;t have the same salary cap problems, so are bettter positioned to hack their way out of their own self-devised jungle, but it cracks me up how you refuse to consider how truly some of your more scathing evaluations of the Knicks might be applied to your beloved Mets.