Wow. Just as I expected. I show the error in their arguments and how they sabatoged the thread, and what happens?

A- Rod responds with the old retort of the defeated of having the evidence shoved in his face: "You're a liar!"

What I have lied about is not indicated.

Keen debating tactic. What's next, "Did not, did too?"

B- Lover comes in out of nowhere and in his self-loathing makes a supposed personal insult.

Of course, I love my side job. And because of my side job I can buy and sell him, but let's not let that influence anything.

C- Bunny used the word myopic so the hillbillies he's spent his life talking down to will, in his world, think he's smart.

And the trio then slaps themselves on the back and sabotages another thread.

Wow.

It's getting to be an old line, but "THIS SH1T IS JUST TOO EASY!"

The jackals refuted, is there any hope of going back to the original topic of the thread, which is John Shulman?

Or has this thread been resigned to having been destroyed by the board idiots and totally taken off track?

(05-19-2013 05:02 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  C- Bunny used the word myopic so the hillbillies he's spent his life talking down to will, in his world, think he's smart.

You wanted me to invoke "obtuse"?

No. I want you to check into the mental institution you so desperately need to go to.

Here's where I miss Goldfinger. Not that I need him for these helpless yahoos, but Bunny really stepped into that line that is straight outta "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"

There is no point in trying to point out all your lies, since it is all based on strawmen you created, you aren't even debating me, you are attacking what you claim I said. It is easy to win a debate if you get to define both sides of the agrument.

Yes, and you've been attempting to do that for quite some time.

Me, I just want to know why you would go on and on about how you didn't dislike John Shulman and then suddenly say you didn't think he was a good coach.

But I'm the liar.

Okay.

TSIJTE!

(05-19-2013 05:36 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Yes, and you've been attempting to do that for quite some time.

Me, I just want to know why you would go on and on about how you didn't dislike John Shulman and then suddenly say you didn't think he was a good coach.

But I'm the liar.

Okay.

TSIJTE!

How does one have ANYTHING to do with the other? Where is the rule written that I have to dislike the guy if I think he is a bad coach? On the flipside I personally dislike Bobby Knight's style but I would also admit he is one of the greatest coaches of all time.
My opinion of him on a personal level has nothing to do with my opinion of him on a professional level, sorry if you don't understand that.

Are you so stupid to think that when I say "like" in the context it did it means what you think of him as a fella and not what kind of a coach he is?

Really!

Okay, now, Shulman. The topic is John Shulman.

Should Murry Bartow bring him home for his staff? Would that help heal the age-old ETSU/Science Hill basketball wound?

(05-19-2013 06:14 PM)PittsburghBucs Wrote:  Are you so stupid to think that when I say "like" in the context it did it means what you think of him as a fella and not what kind of a coach he is?

Really!

Okay, now, Shulman. The topic is John Shulman.

Should Murry Bartow bring him home for his staff? Would that help heal the age-old ETSU/Science Hill basketball wound?

You are the one who was to stupid to understand the different context.
and No Bartow is a bad enough coach in his on right he doesn't need help on that front. Not sure how Shulman a UH grad would help heal any ETSU/Science Hill wound that you might be dreaming up. Shulman is far from a good ole boy so know I don't see him appealing to the fans you insult all the time on here. The only in between Shulman and Science Hill is Cutlip. Ken played two years at UH when Shulman was an assistant. Besides no way Bartow would bring in someone who might have local ties and be liked more then he is. He is to scared for his job and doesn't want to share the spotlight.

Rod, Shulman got a player, albeit indirectly, from Science Hill.

You just mentioned how Shulman does have a link, the good ol' boy network has nothing to do with it.

I know where you're going with the "Bartow wouldn't bring in someone who he thought would take his job" comes from, but I'm not sure Shulman brings that kind of cred. He wouldn't elicit the kind of support Mister would get.

Bartow has brought in former head coaches before. Mike Boyd comes to mind.

Here's the thing about Bartow. Noland has already stated he likes Bartow. Now, if ETSU has two straight losing seasons, then maybe that will change.

But if ETSU goes .500 this year I don't think Bartow will go anywhere. They'll talk about rebuilding and the like and how it's looking up. It's the way ETSU does things.

The board idiot has launched an introductory post into the discussion after a long period of inaccurate mudslinging.

Would anyone now like to continue?

Before Wattad Shulman also signed Josh Odem from Science Hill, I think he was only there one year but he did go there. So thats is two kids Mister
steered away from ETSU because of Bartow.

The divide was there long before Mister was a grad assistant here.

You're making a case for Shulman to get an assistant coaching job with the points you're making; the very coach you claim not to like.

And I'll stick with that word, thank you very much. Everyone knows what is meant when it is used.