What's new
By:

The “I’m a Mike Conley hating bitch” list

Gameface said:
Are you legit dyslexic? People say it all the time when they aren't. My wife is actually dyslexic. She's smart as ****, smarter than me 9 out of 10 ways, but reading is not an avenue of discovery for her.

Dyslexia is not what most people think. It isn't seeing things, letters or numbers, all mixed up, even though that's the way it sort of presents itself. There are three parts our brain uses to semi-automatically decode written language. Dyslexics lack one of those three parts and so the whole system of seamless automatic decoding breaks down and they can't just glance at a word and know what that word is. They have to specifically look at every letter, and keep track and then retroactively put the letters together and figure out what word they just read. It's like if a normal person was reading a book written in binary. Most people read essentially a sentence at a time, glancing at words, not looking at every letter, and using their automatic written language decoding skills to fill in the gaps. That's why that funny "how many 'T' letters did you count in this paragraph" is so hard for non-dyslexics. We're not looking at every letter. It is an automatic process of identifying words without actually reading every word. That's how ****ing amazing most humans are at language. Dyslexics can't do that. They lack one of the fundamental automatic processes in the brain for decoding language, so they have to look at every ****ing letter, every ****ing time. They often lose track and have to look at every letter again. That's where the whole "mixing up letters" or "reversing letters" or "seeing things backwards" comes into the myths about dyslexia. They aren't seeing things backwards, they are having to keep an exact track of each letter in every word and then figuring out the word after they've read it, for every word, every time. For a dyslexic to read takes many times the brain power that most of us use when we read.
Click to expand...
Damn...I had no idea it was that bad. Why it isn't regulary explained how you did is beyond me. They trivialize the **** out it.
 
Gameface said:
Are you legit dyslexic? People say it all the time when they aren't. My wife is actually dyslexic. She's smart as ****, smarter than me 9 out of 10 ways, but reading is not an avenue of discovery for her.

Dyslexia is not what most people think. It isn't seeing things, letters or numbers, all mixed up, even though that's the way it sort of presents itself. There are three parts our brain uses to semi-automatically decode written language. Dyslexics lack one of those three parts and so the whole system of seamless automatic decoding breaks down and they can't just glance at a word and know what that word is. They have to specifically look at every letter, and keep track and then retroactively put the letters together and figure out what word they just read. It's like if a normal person was reading a book written in binary. Most people read essentially a sentence at a time, glancing at words, not looking at every letter, and using their automatic written language decoding skills to fill in the gaps. That's why that funny "how many 'T' letters did you count in this paragraph" is so hard for non-dyslexics. We're not looking at every letter. It is an automatic process of identifying words without actually reading every word. That's how ****ing amazing most humans are at language. Dyslexics can't do that. They lack one of the fundamental automatic processes in the brain for decoding language, so they have to look at every ****ing letter, every ****ing time. They often lose track and have to look at every letter again. That's where the whole "mixing up letters" or "reversing letters" or "seeing things backwards" comes into the myths about dyslexia. They aren't seeing things backwards, they are having to keep an exact track of each letter in every word and then figuring out the word after they've read it, for every word, every time. For a dyslexic to read takes many times the brain power that most of us use when we read.
Click to expand...
!niaga sekirts cixelsyd dam ehT



Seriously though, interesting stuff. Thanks for posting.
 
Archie Moses said:
Mitchell sucked *** his first 5 to 10 games. If you're to weak to understand that criticism from what we saw about Mitchell (he literally has the record for poorest shooting percentage to start a career as a lottery pick.)

I never made a conclusion that he would suck or anyone would. If you read my post, you'll see I make fun of fans for thinking they're forecasters, weathermen, and soothsayers. GMs have a hard enough time doing it, let alone fans.

If a Jazz player plays bad. I'm gonna say it. During Mitchell's rookie year, I assure you, I pimped him harder than any Jazz player on Jazzfanz during summer ball.

He just sucked to start his NBA career. 100% understandable. Was asked too much of him. He still sucked to the degree that he holds an NBA record.

Do you argue that assessment?
Click to expand...
I would like to do a thought experiment. If you agree, then I’ll go find the appropriate YouTube video, and we’ll begin.

I’ll tell you right now that the video will be a time-lapsed representation of human embryonic development. And what we’ll do is pause the video 5 or 6 seconds in, ok. And then all of JFC will patiently standby while you prattle on about how what you’re seeing is the most chicken-looking human, gawddamn, what a chicken-looking dude... Can’t you see that this dude looks like a ****ing chicken, guys?

And in some distorted sense, you’ll have a point. But thankfully there’ll be a stronger, more reasonable sense amongst JFC that doesn’t engage with that distorted view. Instead it’ll say, Why the **** are you drawing conclusions so soon? Why can’t you see that there’s virtually no value in the “intellectual exercise” you’re involved with?

Should I go find the video? You ready?
 
Archie Moses said:
I actively said he wasn't Gobert wasn't untradable while mentioning the likes of Anthony Davis. I was saying this during a stretch where they had their worst offense in history and had no spacing with Favors and Gobert.

I've always been a fan of Gobert but I stood up for the dude that made the thread about trading him. I never advocated for the Jazz to trade him I said he wasn't untradable. He wasn't.


Ok, I was so wrong on Mitchell. He looked like a superstar during his first 5 to 10 games (I can't remember exactly) when he set the record for sucking ***.

Trust me, I'm a huge Mitchell fan. He sucked during his start of his NBA career. It wasn't a universal statement or prediction. If you can't discern my my comments from the likes of I was saying he was a bust and would always suck, it's on you, dude.
Click to expand...
You just confirmed everything, albeit doing your best to spin it with some seriously strange defense (‘no, seriously, a franchise player for some good players is a good trade!’).

Regarding Conley’s early season and Mitchell’s early career, stating the obvious in the shortest term sense doesn’t make you some tough hero. It makes you look kinda foolish, but your bluster about it makes you look idiotic. Regarding Mitchell specifically, your most laughable criticism was that he was unathletic. There are and were absolutely reasonable criticisms of Mitchell, his athleticism is absolutely not one of them.
 
NAOS said:
I would like to do a thought experiment. If you agree, then I’ll go find the appropriate YouTube video, and we’ll begin.

I’ll tell you right now that the video will be a time-lapsed representation of human embryonic development. And what we’ll do is pause the video 5 or 6 seconds in, ok. And then all of JFC will patiently standby while you prattle on about how what you’re seeing is the most chicken-looking human, gawddamn, what a chicken-looking dude... Can’t you see that this dude looks like a ****ing chicken, guys?

And in some distorted sense, you’ll have a point. But thankfully there’ll be a stronger, more reasonable sense amongst JFC that doesn’t engage with that distorted view. Instead it’ll say, Why the **** are you drawing conclusions so soon? Why can’t you see that there’s virtually no value in the “intellectual exercise” you’re involved with?

Should I go find the video? You ready?
Click to expand...
Go find the video.

Game by game assessments are conclusions, my friend.
 
NUMBERICA said:
You just confirmed everything, albeit doing your best to spin it with some seriously strange defense (‘no, seriously, a franchise player for some good players is a good trade!’).

Regarding Conley’s early season and Mitchell’s early career, stating the obvious in the shortest term sense doesn’t make you some tough hero. It makes you look kinda foolish, but your bluster about it makes you look idiotic. Regarding Mitchell specifically, your most laughable criticism was that he was unathletic. There are and were absolutely reasonable criticisms of Mitchell, his athleticism is absolutely not one of them.
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ

You're an idiot and a fake tough guy.
 
Archie Moses said:
Go find the video.

Game by game assessments are conclusions, my friend.
Click to expand...

You can’t watch anything after 4:23, emmk? That’s a generous amount of time actually... way more time than you gave, relatively speaking.

Tell us what you see, Holmes.
 
NUMBERICA said:
It’s okay to be wrong, by the way. Why you choose to prattle on with your weak defense is beyond me.

However, I do appreciate the “I know you are but what am I?” defense. Classic.
Click to expand...

I was so wrong saying Mitchell sucked when he started the season 5/45. Haha

I said he looked slow on defense. He's not slow, but he looked very different amongst NBA players than he did in summer league.

Gobert wasn't "untradable" at the point I said he was.

I'm wrong about a lit if things. I have no problem saying it.
 
Archie Moses said:
A dmt trip.
Click to expand...
Lol. I like that!


Awesome. We just had fun. Now, I can’t see any reason why you should defend your DMT interpretation if someone were to come around and critique it. Couldn’t you just chalk it up to a fun-but-totally-useless interpretive exercise?
 
NAOS said:
Lol. I like that!


Awesome. We just had fun. Now, I can’t see any reason why you should defend your DMT interpretation if someone were to come around and critique it. Couldn’t you just chalk it up to a fun-but-totally-useless interpretive exercise?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm too prideful most of the time
 
Archie Moses said:
Yeah, but I'm too prideful most of the time
Click to expand...
We’re getting somewhere. And I’ve been in that same boat many times.

For me, I’ve found sports to be a good place to stop being prideful in these ways. It’s just so unimportant in any broad view of life. I wish I were better at dropping it than I am.

If I were wrong more often, maybe I’d have more practice with disarming my pride ;)
 
NAOS said:

You can’t watch anything after 4:23, emmk? That’s a generous amount of time actually... way more time than you gave, relatively speaking.

Tell us what you see, Holmes.
Click to expand...

It's a xenomorph!
 
NAOS said:
We’re getting somewhere. And I’ve been in that same boat many times.

For me, I’ve found sports to be a good place to stop being prideful in these ways. It’s just so unimportant in any broad view of life. I wish I were better at dropping it than I am.

If I were wrong more often, maybe I’d have more practice with disarming my pride ;)
Click to expand...
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
 
Slightly off-topic here, but I love Mike Conley on this team. Yeah he still has things to work out in his game, but his leadership and attitude are incredible. And I have no doubt that 3% percentage will go up and he'll start making less turnovers. It's not even ****ing December.
 
Archie Moses said:
Every time I type, I hope it comes across as if I'm in a lifted truck and revving the engine. I'm one if those motorcycle guys that shows how big my balls are by making my crotch rocket go really loud.

Except, that's what you have envisioned, but you're wrong on this.

It's not that I'm so tough or daring, it's that you're too weak to hear criticism for the highest paid Jazz player of all time that's played, barely, like a back up.

Look, dude. I'm 100% a Jazz fan. Conley hasn't played how he should have. If this hurts your feelings, it doesn't mean I'm tough and spewing atrocities. It means you're a gawd damn buttercup.

I like Conley, but he's been a disappointment up to this point. I'm so hard and tough for saying this. The national, local, and ESPN media must be hard asses as well cause the say it too.


I'd love for Conley to play at the level we expected, but until then, as the long remembered words from @TroutBum would have you know, cry harder.


5 months of hard lifting, pudgy couch potato.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, your work ethic and attention to detail are impeccable.

I wish I had more time to complete these reach-arounds in a timely manner, but you are prolific. Suffice it to say that I’ll be dreaming about bashing your head in with a cheap, plastic vacuum cleaner because I am precisely as weak as you insist I am.
 
He's already shooting 37.4% from three (league average is 34.9% so far in the season).
Tonight he looked close to Grit&Grind Conley, was quick, smooth and comfortable.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top