> > Does Dave Meeks ever stop?
> > As recently as yesterday, he was jocking Jerry Stackhouse
> Really? Where was I jocking him again? I did mention that the
> team he is playing for is doing better than the 76ers... since you've
> been shouting about what a cancer he was, I thought I'd point that
Funny -- last year, the Wizzards had a better record than the Celtics,
but you were saying that Walker was better than Webber, and one of your
reasons was because, as you said...
"He [Walker] is (thus far) much less of a headcase/problem child.
Chrissy has whined and moaned everywhere he's gone"
So, records are irrelevant to a player being a cancer...according to
you -- or are you presenting ANOTHER double standard?
and do you REALLY want Judden to go dig up your quotes where you said the
Pistons were happy with Stackhouse (even when his shooting had fallen to
33%)? Because you know Judden WILL ... yet here you are saying that Boston
isn't happy with Walker.
Oh Dave, your forked tongue pokes holes in you again.
You lie so much, you're getting bed sores!
> You will note, also, that I have not once claimed Stackhouse was
> better than Walker...
Didn't say you did, and if you try to, you will lie. You claim that
the Pistons are happy with Stackhouse and you still think it's a good
pickup, yet you think Walker is bad for the Celtics, even though,
according to all the criteia OF YOURS that Judden presented, Walker is
better than Stackhouse, so Detroit CAN'T have made a good signing with
> > 4) The "Walker vs. Webber analysis" (strangely, Dave never answered
> > last reply from a few weeks ago. Sounds like he had no response for
> > exposing his dupicity...probably like he'll ignore this post, or claim that
> > his server 'didn't see it'...unless Judden threatens to re-post it.).
> Didn't think it warranted a response... You want a quick response... here you
> You state:
> "You were claiming that Walker could play all positions"
> False: In the statement you quoted, I clearly state:
> "He is more versatile. He regularly has played three positions
> for the Celtics"
You deny he played all 5 positions during his career? (Be careful, DAve...
he did during his rookie year!)
BTW, you dodged the topic...he is STILL more versatile than Webber, so
your standard STILL has Walker > Webber.
> You state:
> "You overlooked these incidents as 'less' than Webber's career of
> whining and moaning" Since Webber wasn't whining and moaning
> last year, you must put a lot of weight in Webber's history of whining
> and moaning."
> My response:
> As clearly stated many times before, Webber had an established
> one he had done little to change. He's done much to improve upon that
> this year.
21 games changes your whole attitude toward the guy? Me thinks YOU LIE!!!
Judden posted that 21 games into the season.
Walker's selfishness wasn't as big an issue his first two
> years, as
> he was the acknowledged star, especially his first year. Last year,
> us started to realize that Walker was having trouble co-existing with
> like Mercer. When Anderson was first brought in, Walker seemed to do
> better, because he wasn't controlling the ball as much. But this
> seems to have taken his selfishness even further, especially given he
> has Pierce and Mercer both being offensive weapons.
Yet his apg are the same as Stackhouse's even though Stackhouse is
a guard and plays with Hill and Dumars...and you think Stackhouse was
a good pickup? Your duplicity shows again.
BTW, if you realized this LAST YEAR, then why did you STILL put Walker
ahead of Webber in that category after LAST YEAR, when Webber hadn't
cried at all during the season. How can 21 games change your mind, but
Mayday! Mayday! DAve's going down in the flames of his own lies!
> You state:
> "LIE! In last summer's post, you waid of Walker: 'He is more of a
> You made this in response to me claiming "This year, he was expected
> the true leader, and he hasn't been that"
> Walker was more of a leader than Webber, but that doesn't mean he's
> example that needs to be followed. When the Celtics were lacking in
> offensive weapons, the Cs needed a guy like Walker to play like he
> Now, they have more weapons... they need a guy to play in a TEAM
> oriented scheme. Walker hasn't shown a consistent desire to do so...
You said Walker was showing these selfish anti-team tendencies last year,
and had problems co-existing with Mercer, yet you STILL put him ahead of
Webber, so you are still lying. Don't try to say his doing the same thing
now makes him worse than Webber.
> You state:
> "LIE! Webber said he wants out of Sacramento!"
> Cite your sources. I have not heard any such comments from Webber this
told you...USA Today. check the February issues.
Quite to the contrary, in fact. I've heard him make many
> about how happy he is with his new team.
Cite your sources.
> You state:
> "Another lie! You specifically pointed out his shot selection and his
> FG%. Judden showed that Walker is shooting less and hitting more
> this year vs. last year"
> Year FG% FGA/game FT% FTA/game
> 97-98 42.6 20.7 64.5% 5.8
> 98-99 41.2 18.3 51.3% 5.2
> Now, perhaps you can help me with that KSU math...
> I have a hard time figuring out how he is 'hitting more'...
That is his stats NOW. When Judden posted this, his fg% and ft% were
higher, as well as his PPG. You lie!
> > Well, there you have it. In every single Data Point that I have seen Dave
> > present, Antoine Walker wins, yet Dave dogs on Walker and jocks Stackhouse.
> False... Dave has not once claimed Stackhouse was > than Walker....
YOU LIE!!! Now, you are saying false because you claim that Judden
Judden claims that you said that Stackhouse > Walker. What Judden
did say was that Walker > Stackhouse, according to YOUR data points,
but yet you dog on Walker and claim that Stackhouse was a great pickup.
Don't dodge the issue, Dave. Either Stackhouse is bad for Detroit, or
Walker is a very good player for the Celtics. Your only other course is to
prove that Stackhouse > Walker, using your previously established 'data
points'. You are so desperate to save face in the Stackhouse debate, that
you aren't willing to admit you were wrong. YOu CLAIM that you're a big
enough man to admit that you were wrong, but yet you still can't do it,
though Judden doesn't doubt that you are quite the big man -- you should lay
off fast food.
Judden has exposed your lies and your duplicities over and over. You
dogged on Theo Ratliff when his FG% fell to 38%, but you still claim
Stackhouse, who shoots ~38% was a great pickup. Your Walker/Webber
criteria has proven your duplicity. You criteria disproves that Walker
is bad for the Celts while Stackhouse is good for Detroit. You also
are not humble enough to admit that you were wrong and that you use
double-standards to try and justify your points....THAT was why you
ignored Judden's reply on the first "double-standard" thread. You
tried to use a few selective "cite where I said exactly that" type of
arguments, while ignoring the argument. Shall Judden Repost the reply,
so you can respond to it, point by point? Didn't think you'd want to
David, is there a caboose on your train of thought?
To bad the parole board at Ho Jail doesn't use double-standards, like
Dave's worst usenet nightmare!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own