puffyusaf#2 wrote: JGC wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:^damn you defend anything that isn't a Laker.
Inhale. Then exhale. (Not the other way around).
Ok, now ... I never defended anything. I just didn't see anything in there from Cuban where he suggested that the Lakers should amnesty Kobe. He never actually said that, did he? (I mean, maybe he did but he wasn't quoted as such in the article).
I mean, I thought we didn't like it when the media blows things out of proportion. We just went through this. I was just pointing out how the media blew his comments out of proportion with the article title (I'm sure for the same selfish reasons they blow the Kobe/Dwight thing out of proportion).
I don't even understand your comment really. Do you blindly defend everything that is Laker? I don't think you do, do you?
LOL.. You are comedy. Inhale. Exhale. You should try it yourself.
Like I said, Damn you defend anything that is against LA. It wasn't a guess it was an observation. I know it is true because you came with your "inhale. exhale" quip. Typical.
Maybe had you said it might be blown out of proportion. You jumped in saying the title was rediculous and Mark never said Amnesty Kobe. Guess the League Office also is blowing it out of proportion too by looking into it to fine him. I know its hard to understand but an owner can not talk about a player who is under contract for another team.
I don't blindly defend anything. It just seems I am always defending cause a few of you only find ways to knock the team at every chance. I am sure you have issue with Kobe shooting 23 times tonight.
You never answered my question. Did Mark actually suggest that the Lakers amnesty Kobe?
When the League Office looks in to things, does that mean the accusations have merit? What happens when the league hands down a punishment as a result of the accusations? Would you say then, that the punished player/person deserved it because the League Office said so? Definitely want to see the answer to that question because you just might be the first person to think what the League Office does = truth!
Bottom line, I thought the article TITLE was misleading. Clearly intended to draw attention rather than properly summarize the article's content. I mean if you agree with that sentiment then shhh, move on to something else instead of making it a personal thing. If you disagree, and feel the title was an accurate summation of the content, let's talk about it.
I mean you've offered nothing of value to the conversation about the article, instead you just make personal attacks about how I defend ANYTHING that isn't LA. *rolls eyes*