What's new
By:

39-43

Sloanfeld said:
You can't determine how many games Boozer would have played had he been on the Jazz. This argument is so weak.
Click to expand...

Sloanfeld said:
The past is not always an indicator of future events.
Click to expand...

The problem here, sloany, is that you somehow feel justified in arguing for Bozzer using assumptions and conjecture, yet you demand nothing less than empirical evidence for any argument against him.

Perhaps if you could fix this disparity, people would consider taking you seriously.

Perhaps.
 
Bronco70 said:
The problem here, sloany, is that you somehow feel justified in arguing for Bozzer using assumptions and conjecture, yet you demand nothing less than empirical evidence for any argument against him.

Perhaps if you could fix this disparity, people would consider taking you seriously.

Perhaps.
Click to expand...

This I doubt.
 
How about you go bug Collin Cowheard, he said the reason he's not picking the Bulls is Boozer and a team with him as a focal point wont win a ring, that's far worse then what most here say about Boozer here. Well other then the made up slights perceived in your head.
 
Sloanfeld said:
The past is not always an indicator of future events.
Click to expand...

Bronco70 said:
The problem here, sloany, is that you somehow feel justified in arguing for Bozzer using assumptions and conjecture, yet you demand nothing less than empirical evidence for any argument against him.

Perhaps if you could fix this disparity, people would consider taking you seriously.

Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is pretty much all Sloanfeld uses to argue for Boozer. Boozer had a good statistical year here, so he would obviously be better than AJ. Boozer was on a team with Deron and the rest, so obviously if Boozer had stayed, so would Deron et al. the team with Boozer on it did better than this years team so obviously if Boozer had been on this years team it would have been better.

All of that is using the past as an indicator of future events.



Wow Sloanfield getting slowned left and right in this thread.
 
Sloanfeld said:
The past is not always an indicator of future events.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that just because your mom was pro-life, that doesn't mean that there's not a possibility that you and your future wife may lean more pro-choice and possibly prevent future Sloanfidorks?
 
Bronco70 said:
The problem here, sloany, is that you somehow feel justified in arguing for Bozzer using assumptions and conjecture, yet you demand nothing less than empirical evidence for any argument against him.

Perhaps if you could fix this disparity, people would consider taking you seriously.

Perhaps.
Click to expand...

I've compiled many a post filled with statistics and detailing how Boozer helped our offense AND defense. Of course, all you see is the stupid replies from the same idiots in every topic and just go along with that. (reverse trolling, btw)
 
Sloanfeld said:
The past is not always an indicator of future events.
Click to expand...

Sloanfeld said:
I've compiled many a post filled with statistics and detailing how Boozer helped our offense AND defense. Of course, all you see is the stupid replies from the same idiots in every topic and just go along with that. (reverse trolling, btw)
Click to expand...

Helped.

Past tense.

Past is not an indicator of future events.

Ok since you seem to be really that dense, I fixed the first quote for you. Now you can say SUBMIT TO SLOANFIELD or whatever, secure in your delusions of adequacy.

Sloanfeld said:
The past is not always an indicator of future events. Unless I am using Boozer's past performance, excluding any time he may have actually missed due to injury, to "prove" he would have without doubt kept the team together, and would have been MVP, and would have of a surety lead the Jazz to a championship this year.
Click to expand...
 
LogGrad98 said:
Helped.

Past tense.

Past is not an indicator of future events.

Ok since you seem to be really that dense, I fixed the first quote for you. Now you can say SUBMIT TO SLOANFIELD or whatever, secure in your delusions of adequacy.
Click to expand...

I used to think you were a complete moron but now I can't tell if you are just messing with me or really believe some of the garbage that you type.

Boozer consistently hepled our team, that wasn't going to change. You don't just lose all your basketball skills. Injuries are totally random. You can't compare these things. It's like comparing one's annual salary with their investments in the stock market. One will be consistent, the other will fluctuate.
 
It is stuff you yourself typed. Did you forget typing that if Boozer were here this year Deron wouldn't have left? Yep that was you. Did you forget typing that with Boozer we would have been a better team? Yep that was you too. And neither of them had anything to do with Boozer's stats. Also Boozer's stats dropped off this year. Did you account for that? AJ had a better year all around, especially defensively. Did you account for that?

I used to think you were just messing around, but it is literally always the same thing with you. Always. The same. Now I know you are just a complete moron. You type whatever comes to your mind then when you are called on it you take off on tangents to "prove" you are right yet again. Then you end it all with "SUBMIT TO SLOANFIELD" or something equally inane. It is old and worn out. Move on to something else for once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top