🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@BShark Curious, where did you hear that Whitman was behind Lightfoot? @JayHawkFanToo might only be a year off in his breakout prediction, which is still earlier than I would have thought.

@jaybate-1-0 Nice .. got me thinking too.

Self instituted a no facial hair policy, but only for white power forwards that were transfers.

Someone, likely Coleby, tweets him under the screen name "@myrosterspot" implying bodily harm.

He got Bragg's room and he gets a secondary high each evening. A free bong in the ceiling, though.

That crazy woman that was after Vick scrawled "I will not be ignored" in lipstick on his car window.

He said "Yes sir" to Hudy and Hudy got really mad. He still doesn't know the problem there.

William said it was ok, but Mary objected (gratuitous W&M reference before anyone else does it)

Made the huge mistake of wearing a "MAGA" hat to an on-campus free speech conference.

Nike called and reminded him that the embargo prevents top big men from coming to KU; call intended for Udoka, but Whit missed that.

Coach Townsend called him (Greg) "Kite" one too many times.

And, finally, saw the disturbing sight of Self clucking around on the Court at AFH, chanting, "won't play MU". A jam packed AFH agreed, save one very wise man. (picking the scab here -- just enjoy it).

@JayHawkFanToo The point, again, is the enjoyment of the rivalry is in the past. It's over. But it is now a fact. It's undeniable. That's not emotion.

Don't confuse that with the actual enjoyment. Whether you enjoy it or not IS admittedly emotional, of course. Once you enjoy it, though, and admit it, it's now a fact we can rely upon.

The refusal to play MU is because we are mad, or the new term "butt-hurt." It's an emotional reaction that is on-going.

The prior "fact" of the enjoyment of the rivalry provides the benefit we could enjoy moving forward. There is no monetary downside. We play unattractive opponents at the Sprint Center many times. And I'm quite sure that marketing of the rivalry could render some cash flow -- at least more than the big battles with Nebraska, Davidson, and whoever.

@mayjay Ignoring your attempts at insults once again, the monetary point is self evident. In fact, it is moot. It means nothing and has no weight. We play other schools that provide us at a max the same monetary benefit as playing MU. There is no monetary downside. That makes it irrelevant. Yet we play Davidson at the Sprint Center for goodness sake (high monetary benefit, right?). And all this talk about monetary benefit seems to ignore much of our non-con schedule. My post cites the other former Big 12 schools and the supposed benefit from playing them. Debate point #1.

My post didn't claim or suggest that the majority opinion that we shouldn't play MU should be ignored or overridden. My post clearly stated and focused on what was driving that opinion. You have ignored what I wrote. Debate point #2.

I have not said that the desire to play MU is not emotional. I used the objective, undeniable fact that KU fans have enjoyed the rivalry for over a century and the other points made that are also undeniable as fact. You then use the facts to reach a conclusion. Logic. Debate point #3.

But as my post referenced -- logic (and debate points) are irrelevant when emotion overwhelms.

I understand if that is too biting, caustic -- whatever -- for you. I'm sure you'll come up with something else. Fine with me. Tissues are cheap if it's too rough for you.

@globaljaybird You've offered nothing but static. Like the old TV station with rabbit ears. Hard really to make out what's going on.

Looking at how @mayjay and @globaljaybird responded -- that has become a major problem with this site. Read my completely civil and direct post, and then read their uncivil response. And that sends this into the abyss. Or my choice is leave the insults and move on, which I've done before, or to reply. And then upon reply, when I answer the garbage, they'll be more insults and accusations. One wonders what they really are afraid of, what insecurities they are dealing with, or what inspires such childish and ignorant behavior. Again, read the post that preceded their responses. It's the classic attempt to shut down an opinion that doesn't square with their own. Not surprising from the sources.

But, as usual, I won't be deterred by such tripe, like it or not.

@DoubleDD I've got nothing more to offer on this other than below to @JayhawkFanToo. But thank you for your civil response.

I can tell you the last time KU had the best point guard in the country ... give you one guess.

@JayHawkFanToo Self-serving, in large part, is acting on what you "want." That's emotions. That is not logic. You said most fans don't "want" to play MU. The "why" they don't want to play is an emotional reaction.

All of this avoids the obvious. KU fans got great enjoyment in playing MU and the rivalry. That is an objective truth. No one disputes that. Which has always been my point. It is historical. It is part of our history. It was maybe the longest running real rivalry. Regardless of whether we like MU, they were our counter-balance. We "hated" MU, and they us -- 99% of the time in a good way (see the Norm Stewart ceremony with the rocking chair -- CBB at its best). It instilled a different sort of passion.

All of this other chatter about "what does it do for us" avoids and ignores the obvious refutation of that argument -- what does Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Colorado -- and what do some of the others we play really do for us? Not as much as MU, to be sure.

This analysis has nothing to do with that. We don't play MU because of a non-logical, emotional response. It is cutting off our nose to spite our face. We, collectively, enjoyed that rivalry greatly. It was part of who we are as KU fans. It created great interest. I had a few threads simply bagging on MU back in the day. Again, facts relate to our selfish enjoyment of the rivalry are not assailable.

Because MU left, and did so with all the b.s. that went with it, as others have noted, we won't play them. That's why we won't play them. That's why Self has the burr in his saddle. No other reason. And Self probably knows a bit more of the behind the scenes crap that MU pulled.

Relate to what's best for KU though in 2017 though? Solely emotions. Not logic.

Let's just not confuse the two. That said, for many, the emotional element is strong and outweighs logic. That happens in life.

Most all of the reasons for not playing MU center on MU leaving and how they did it. That's fine. I get that.

@JayhawkFanToo Disengenous is exercising strained, self-serving logic. Look in the mirror.

@DoubleDD I have posted in depth on this. The fact is that what matters to most on this topic are hurt feelings. And you can't debate with that.

Bill Self is the boss. The Godfather. What he says goes.

Nebraska, Tex A&M, Colorado say logic lacking.

Self lacks logic.

Chicken.

I may be a bit unclear, but don't the conferences have rules that are more punitive -- recalling the Luke Axtell situation -- vs. by school? And the NCAA authorized conferences to make those rules? I haven't looked it up so just tossing it out.

Embargo = Poor Recruiting? Just another name?

I'm not saying we are poor at recruiting. Obviously we're not. But if we're not getting our targets at PG and C, could it be that we're not good at that aspect for whatever reason?

There is obviously not a 2, 3, or 4 embargo.

It all strikes me as a an excuse for our failure* to land guys we want.

*And I don't think we have "failed" at all. We are in a position to win the national title every year.

If the only schools that seem to our recruit us as whole are Duke and UK, that's hardly a cause for alarm in my book.

@BeddieKU23 I fall in the other camp very strongly. You said, "Coaches, AD’s, should NEVER have the right to restrict a kid from going anywhere. They do not own these kids like property."

A very important point -- the kids signed a deal. An agreement. A contract. Either they signed as adults, or their parents on their behalf. In all walks of life, when you sign a contract, that can govern your conduct. A non-compete in an employment situation is similar. Many times there is a one year restriction where you can't work in a particular field. So the "property" argument, much like the "slave" argument you hear from some of the more ignorant of the athletes, is simply not valid. You can contract away your freedom.

A second important is that, in fact, a coach, AD, whoever, CANNOT NOW restrict a kid from going anywhere. In fact, the athlete can do exactly what any other student can do as far as transferring. The only stipulation is that the kid can't play basketball (of course, in fact, the same as the non-athlete).

The NCAA is a private organization. Kids are free to play basketball anywhere they want. The NBA rule is an NBA rule and has nothing to do with the NCAA. That's up to the NBA. The kids make a conscious decision that NCAA basketball benefits them. That's the deal. If a kid doesn't like the NCAA's rules, then don't take the deal. It's really that easy. A kid can then do what other students do -- get student loans (which are available to all income levels, and grants to the lower income levels), work a job, whatever.

The NCAA rules on transfers is part of the deal.

Somehow, thousands of kids feel the NCAA deal is a good one, given the alternatives. It is truly a free country and the athlete always has a choice. This isn't a situation where you either jump off a cliff, or take the deal. Each athlete's personal situation dictates whether the deal is good, bad, or average.

@BeddieKU23 Right, our wing talent is again the best in the country -- include Graham and talk about our collection of talent 1-3, we're still the best.

I think Vick starts. Self favored him over Svi it seemed at the end of the season. Vick is simply a freak. The sleeper for KU's MVP this season? I go with Vick.

The points made by @Texas-Hawk-10 on Ellis, though, but for the shooting part, probably makes it highly unlikely Ellis sticks. He'all make money playing basketball somewhere.

It's not a matter of if we win 25+ games, it's just a matter of how. I'm kind of to the point where I don't even worry much about recruiting any more. Not that I'm disinterested in recruiting. But worrying about which prima donna chooses a KU hat has fallen off my radar. I'm still baffled by Julius Randle stiffing us back a few years ago. Thought that was a natural fit, and a lock to come to Lawrence. We get Mason as an afterthought and he's perhaps the best player ever under Self. Then we land a perfect 4 (Bragg) and he flames out. OADs always seem to underwhelm in some manner or form, and then there's JJ. No rhyme or reason to all of this. Just when we feel we're behind the eight ball, Self snags someone late or a transfer.

I follow this pretty passively now.

@jaybate-1-0 I guess my persisting doubt flows from the talent that we amass every season. Top 5 talent. The embargo you have mentioned appears limited to PG and C, as you have suggested. Which is big, I admit. There is little I can offer as far as evidence against that thought, given that we have not landed an elite level/ranked PG or C in many moons, despite a system made to order (pre 4 guard) for a top center. The fact is the fact.

I do find the sandbagging thing very interesting. I viewed Wiggins as soft. One of those, "when the going gets tough, he gets going the other way" kind of guys. There were times during the season that refuted my initial opinion. In fact, by the end of the season, I fell into the Wiggins fan category. JJ was the perfect OAD. Wiggins not as much, but he did perform -- and the Stanford deal was much more about game planning by Standford, in my opinion.

Love seemed like a great fit for Cleveland. The commentators thought so. I really couldn't form a good opinion given my NBA-less brain.

Interesting take, for sure.

I think it is possible that the two PGs taken before JJ had more NBA value initially, given the huge impact the PG can have. But while I am a skeptic, perhaps related to degree of influence, I do not doubt that the shoe company's exert high influence. Money is involved.

Rock Chalk to you, as well.

@jaybate-1-0 How does JJ this year differ from Wiggins who went #1 and the Embiid #3 in 2014?

You know I'm a skeptic on this stuff.

It appears from NBA way outsider that the PG emphasis in the NBA moved JJ back, and then he engineered (sorry to borrow the term) his landing spot in Phoenix vs. Boston.

Jackson has "it." Stats back "it" up.

Tarik has to get a job. And when he's done, he's a lock to be a coach. Said it before -- of all of our transfers, he's the one I wish we had four years. Great guy.

@chriz no worries - unite as Jayhawks. Now, they do play the same position. Wonder if both can survive there? Who is better?

@Texas-Hawk-10 Yea, you've got me pegged. In other threads, I've suggested my logic for playing them, and that is the incredible enjoyment we got out of the rivalry. And now we have no rival. Despite MU leaving a failing Big 12 -- something that seems wise in retrospect -- we are the ones choosing to end the rivalry.

However, equating MU to a despondent 4 year old is probably accurate. But my motivations for continuing to play them have nothing to do with MU. I don't care one bit about MU.

It would be an amazing spectacle .. BB game at Sprint center and FB at Arrowhead. We all know it would be off the charts.

But that seems to not matter to those with the "can't let it go" mentality.

So what I'm hearing is that I'm wrong on this? @wissox - lots of unhealthy, aggrieved, butt-hurt grudges at MU here. Let .. it .. go.

@mayjay As I said, the rationale is severely strained. You may have tweaked a hammy there.
@Texas-Hawk-10 By the way, thanks for the history lesson. And yes, I know MU was the first one to publicily discuss. You may have missed the link I posted a while back on that history. And you don't understand the use of the phrase, "domino to FALL" -- emphasis on "fall." But carry on. Never stopped you before.

We're chicken to play MU and WSU. Chick, chick, CHICKEN!

Bill Self, our savior, has protected us from mean old MU (and WSU). It appears we are bowing to his benevolence.

Running from the possible losses that are most upsetting to fans, staff, and the university. Hmmm.

The best point (I think) is @DoubleDD's. The majority of fans probably don't want to.

But we're still chicken -- visualizing Self squatting and lurching around with wings flapping on the AFH court, squawking -- "but they left us" -- over and over. Until collapsing. Only to be mounted by an MU Tiger in the NCAA tourney. As the Tiger enjoys himself, Self squeals "we missed bunnies, we missed bunnies!!"

If you doubt this tale, see WSU. We've been there before. Just change Self's squawking to "what does it do for us", and the Shocker on top. Self squealing, "we were soft, we were soft." That is a true story.

I don't like true stories like that.

@mayjay The hypocrisy is Self's rationale. We play and have played Colorado, Texas A&M, and Nebraska. All left. In fact, NU was the first domino and we are playing at their place. Any rationale that differentiates MU is severely strained, thus hypocrisy.

So, do we believe Cal or "the media"? Sensationalism sells.

Our stance on MU is hypocritical. Self is wrong on this. Always has been. We look like the aggrieved ex-wife. But I guess it's easier to cry, whine and rationalize than just play them and beat them. Self looks silly on this. See WSU too. We're just chicken. Not a good look.

But it is good for one thing .. KU fans to engage in an adoring Bill Self circle jerk.

The NCAA will match us up with MU. The storm is coming. See WSU for historical context.

Why am I the only one? Could I actually, for once, be wrong?

@elpoyo Do you want the Big 12 streak to end? If so, why?

I've heard that suggested among some, saying it is a distraction from the real goal. I fall in the camp that I want to win every game, and winning every game mean winning the Big 12. My only caveat is that I want to be prepare for the NCAA tourney, and if that might mean sacrificing a few wins to be ready, in certain cases, that works.

Bill Self couldn't win the Big 10 and until he wins the national title again this all means nothing. He's a choker .... just beating @elpoyo to it; so now it's said.

Seriously, though, I am 100% on board for the Big 10. That's the right spot. Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, MSU in hoops. Wow.

@KUSTEVE No one said the "only measure" -- it is, however, the "ultimate" prize. You can see the difference, right? One can appreciate and enjoy what we have done, but be extremely dissatisfied by our lagging behind the other blue bloods on national titles.

But now you criticize @elpoyo because, in your opinion, he didn't respond either directly to your topic or in the manner you preferred (suggesting "stupidity")? You said Self solved something. @elpoyo said until we win a title, we can't say anything is solved. He's right.

I've posted enough threads that change or morph into something not intended. It happens. It's discussion. But the NC issue seems a reasonable tangent here.

@brooksmd It is legendary that Bill Self appears tight in tourney games. Much comment on that. Vs. Oregon, I recall both Newell and Tait posting on twitter that Self seemed relaxed. I buy that that. He seemed more relaxed all season to me. I guess my take is that there was nothing vs. Oregon that I saw that might create tightness. Other times, when he was ranting and flopping, and all that stuff we've seen, maybe more so.

Most of the time, though, as @justanotherfan referenced, a team reflects the coach much of the time. I do think that feeling prepared, have answers to the opposition (which we didn't have vs. Nova), can help there. Jay Wright had a plan; we adjusted; Wright countered. And it ended there. That might tighten up a player a big -- when they're jumping our hand-offs, preventing normal entry passes, etc.

@globaljaybird I didn't say it was fun, just pathetic.

@JayHawkFanToo Every basketball game entails a "fair amount" of luck. So that really means nothing. I know we disagree on the "luck" factor in the NCAA tourney. A matter of degrees separate our perspectives. Folks that favor a coach's perspective tend to be more in the "luck" camp. Those that tend to be more critical of coaches tend to be more in the "less luck" camp.

The tourney results speak for themselves and prove that great teams and programs win titles, with few exceptions. In the last 9 seasons, Duke, UNC, and UK account for 5 titles. And KU won the title the year before that, and Florida had gone back to back preceding KU, and UNC won in 2005, UConn 2004, etc. It's a large amount of other stuff, beyond "luck." When we win the next title, the narrative changes. If we win this season, suddenly we've won 2 titles in 11 seasons. It's that sudden. But we have to win it. I defend @elpoyo because of the lack of civility of those who respond to him -- meaning personal attacks.

We are national title deficient among blue bloods, and it is always a burr in the saddle. We went 20 years without one, now have gone another 10. I, like others, grow tired of the fawning over Big 12 titles. It's not a substitute for the ultimate prize.

@DoubleDD Some people may be fans, but may only see the negative, or may only choose to comment when something irritates them. That doesn't mean they are not a fan of the KU or the program. It may be annoying. Some folks think everything that can go wrong, will go wrong -- and some are right (see the MU fan base). And all of the fatalists that get anxious at the start of every NCAA tourney, that somehow, someway, we'll lose before our seed line, have only been wrong a few times since Bill Self took over (Self's regular season success raising that tourney bar, of course).

JayHawkFanToo No, I just thinks it's pathetic that every time the guy posts something, it's always the same attacks. That's a much greater reflection on those that think they're cute attacking a reasonable point. Look at the garbage from @globaljaybird.

@KUSTEVE Of course, no one said we're in bad shape. Problem talking titles and real achievement?

What do UNC, Duke, UK, UConn, Nova, Louisville have in common? Right. All have rings since we won ours. Except three of those have won two titles since we've won ours. Tourney is all luck though, right?

@elpoyo You are exactly right. Nothing can be deemed "solved" until he delivers the national championship. Period. We are now nearly 10 years past his first one. It's time.

I think @approxinfinity and @BeddieKU23 are right. There is certainly a lot if information out there to suggest that JJ passed on the workout with the Celtics because he wanted to go to Phoenix; even some claims that Phoenix acted improperly in perhaps working with JJ ahead of time. Makes sense to try to "engineer" -- a word used a lot around her -- his landing spot. Better climate to be sure.

@chriz So who do you think that we have lost to in the Elite 8 that has greater talent than we do? Or in the sweet 16? Or the round of 32? Under Self, have we ever lost to a team with better talent that we have other than UK in the 2012 title game?

MSU in 2009?

I'm curious when talent under Self has ever been the issue.

I think it's one of two alternatives -- either, theory 1, Self achieves about equally to other elites in the tourney; or theory 2, Self underachieves in the tourney because he has been out coached at times -- witness losses to teams with lesser talent.

@chriz @jaybate-1-0 Once again, respectfully, I think there is this possibly purposeful avoidance of the facts here. We have top 5 talent nationally every year. That is "elite" talent. We talk regularly about all of our draft choices. We see all of the stars next to the recruits. We always have elite talent.

We were not playing a team with "Elite" talent from a ranking standpoint.

And certainly not a team with more talent that we had. Same with our loss to Villanova. And the same as UNC, who regularly has won without the OAD guys and with talent in line with KU. None of those teams had more talent than we did.

Oregon Elite? Please. Here's their rivals rankings Jordan Bell 68, Payton Pritchard 49, Tyler Dorsey 18, Dillon Brooks 98, Dylan Ennis 99, Kavell Bigby-Williams (unranked), and Casey Benson (unranked).

This is simply folly, our attempts to demean the talent on Bill Self's bench, for the sole purpose of explaining away why we lose.

I won't bother posting the rankings of the players we relied upon in the game vs. Oregon. We know.

In fact, this past season -- arguably at least -- we had the two of the top five players on college basketball courts in Frank Mason and Josh Jackson.

All that matters for CBB success is how the play in CBB. Mason was the best player in the county. Josh Jackson was pretty darned close to that.

I guess @chriz's argument about game planning is interesting in that I have said before that Self should be planning during the season for the NCAA tourney. And I do believe that he does. But if he is not tasking his assistants with long term scout assignments on the top teams, that is simply not forgivable. Again, I think he does that. Getting running reports ready for the top 15 teams, for example. What @chriz really said is that because Altman was prepping for us, we got out coached. That's the conclusion.

Another reality is whether Dana Altman simply developed his talent better than Bill Self did? I don't know. But he had a very good team, one comparable to Kansas to be sure. And I sure hope we were prepping for Oregon all season.

Now, guys, I'm part of the Bill Self fan club too. I really am. But a quick fact check you can do on your own is to compare our player's rankings to the rest of the CBB universe. We always have top 5 talent. I can't even remember when we haven't had top tier talent. Look at our projected rotation this season. Find me 5 teams with a better rotation. That is nearly always the case.

Graham, Newman, Vick, Svi, Udoka, Preston, Lightfoot, Garrett, Whitman.

Regular season-wise, Self seems to be the best at not underachieving with his talent. Meaning, better than any other coach (in my opinion), he gets the max out of his talent during the regular season. That's what's amazing. His ability to get the most out of his talent in the regular season without dips, valleys, and off years. That is what separates Bill Self.

Post season-wise, it's just a different discussion. The arguments I have seen when Self is chastised for his post-season losses is to point out how Kansas and Self are similar to other schools. And there is the point. Self is NOT amazing in the post season despite top 5 talent. And he certainly isn't better than the group of top coaches.

How am I wrong?

I just became a Kings fan. Any team with Frank Mason is a team of mine. Bilas sure was sold on him.

But Bilas should really just move to covering the NBA. He hates the NCAA and is always suggesting rules changes similar to the NBA.

@jaybate-1-0 Nic Moore .. good guy that we can hope that Charlie will compare to. Same last name is a good start.

@ParisHawk Of course, you are correct. I'm never surprised though by these sorts of rationalizations and attempts at minimization. It's expected when it comes to KU players -- interesting, most of the time the good ones. If it's someone that disappoints, like Brannen Greene or Conner Frankamp, some who have rationalized JJ's conduct (like @Crimsonorblue22) cast them as the devil. Complete hypocrisy.

I always love the "there is much more to this story than we know." Ok. That means the writer of that quote doesn't know, but will speculate that there is more -- implying of course that the additional information that the writer does not know favors JJ. That's just garbage. The same writer will speculate, and has, that there is much more to the story regarding BG or CF, implying there is more negative information. Solely because of ones like or dislike of a particular player. There is always info we don't know. It's just interesting how that is treated.

But this case is exactly what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. What we supposedly don't know, I'm sure the prosecutor did know. The prosecutor could have charged this as an assault if he/she felt it met the burden. And likely, because the lady was inside of a big piece of steel (the car) and the windows weren't busted out and/or JJ didn't try to open the door, the prosecutor passed on that charge.

JJ's conduct stands alone. Period.

The further folly here, as highlighted in @Texas-Hawk-10's comment, that some can't get through their heads, is that NO ONE IS PRETENDING THIS IS A ONE WAY INCIDENT. No one. It's a complete strawman argument. It's the type of argument that is intended, purposefully, to distract and CREATE a narrative that is simply untrue. How hard is this?

@Texas-Hawk-10, further, your definition of assault in Kansas is partially wrong. You suggest that an "Assault involves bodily harm or ..." That is incorrect. What you put after your "or" is correct -- threatening them. An assault in Kansas is "knowingly placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." It's before bodily harm. So, if someone randomly hits someone in the back of the head with a fist, most think the person was assaulted. Common usage, yes. Legally in Kansas, no. That is a battery and because the person had no immediate apprehension, then there is no "assault".

ESPN saying Bulls and Knicks are after JJ.

@approxinfinity Nice .. took me a few seconds to process that.

My wish for the Sixers to draft both JJ and Mason has gone up in flames with the trade with the Celtics -- might have gotten me to watch the NBA again. But good grief, anything but Sacramento.

@approxinfinity Really, the fact that the focus of JJ's anger was a girl/woman, means everything. If he did this to a man, while unacceptable, it is much different. I don't know, this might provoke the claims of sexism and all of that misplaced garbage. But I'm happily in the camp that you treat women differently solely because they are women -- women deserve courtesy and kindness, even when they are not of the same mind. That's what you do as a man. I'm not really concerned about what one might speculate that she's seen, heard, or experienced. Perhaps she needs to experience a man who isn't going to act like this (even if one assumes her to be the source of the problems). I know there can be extreme examples that test my beliefs, so I grant those arguments. JJ went way overboard. If JJ acts that way when a woman disrespects a friend, how does he act when he is the point of disrespect? A reasonable question. Perhaps this incident, as I've mentioned in posts when this occurred, can be low impact lesson that prevents a more serious future issue.

@stoptheflop I don't know how old your kids are, but what JJ did was not a normal mistake by a kid.

@DoubleDD So, if I'm following you, because someone might have had a more difficult upbringing, that is an excuse for criminal behavior? That works real well -- see the Lansing state prison.

@elpoyo I would not apply @stoptheflop's significantly misguided comments -- particularly the "Who amongst us didn’t do something equally stupid when we were young" -- to this entire board, or even most of this board. To your point, I've seen nothing that tells me that JJ is a "terrific young man." The evidence would indicate otherwise, but ambivalence might be my spot right now. I would say this, though, he didn't rob a bank. He didn't hurt anyone (which is a big deal to me). That doesn't diminish what he did. There is just a continuum of poor conduct. His was clearly worse than kids will be kids.

The title caught my attention. Much the fan of bald cats. And a fan of reloading, too.

@mayjay No, I noticed. And replied purposefully and deliberately.

@justanotherfan You do see where @elpoyo said, "is that it?" It's a question. And as I've mentioned, one that can be refuted. And I've explained why it is a relevant inquiry.

In fact, your prior post leads one down that path, which was the point of my main reply. You say in reference to women and minorities -

"It’s assumed that they just aren’t as skilled, as knowledgeable or as hard working, which requires them to do even more to prove themselves."

So, not as skilled, knowledgeable or hard working as what? Ah, the dreaded white male again. Because you've identified everyone on the planet except the white male, that's all that's left. Do you make these assumptions?

And one wonders why one might question whether someone of the leftist persuasion might seek to heap accolades on "a woman persevering in a job usually held by a man", or something like that. That is no stretch at all, particularly when many seem to think they have to work harder to get where they are. You apparently (in a self serving fashion) attach more merit to the accomplishments of all non-white males, right?

It's at least a reasonable question (how gender might impact something) to consider given what we get shoved in our faces every single day on every "evil white male" topic possible. And when the left makes everything about race and gender. Why wouldn't one assume that bleeds into how they might assess or evaluate success?

Again, this is easy. Way too easy.

Further, it's funny and sad all in one, your comment -- that oh, the woman and the minority have to prove themselves unlike the mean old privileged white man. What a load of tripe. It's the narrative some -- some -- women and minorities would like to create to make themselves feel better, and demean the accomplishments of white men (in their minds), who they view as an impediment to their achievement.

But your narrative also gives one the built in excuse for failure. And that's what your assertion is about as much as anything. When you fail, it can always be someone else's fault. Convenient.

@mayjay Right .. me, a snowflake. There's a first. But it's your style. You take your posture (as the offended snowflake) and now send it my way.

Of course, I have not stated nor suggested that I'm offended by anything. I have pointed out your (continued) intellectual dishonesty. And your last point admitted it -- "suggesting" is now the word you use. Sure.

By your dishonest approach, anyone that asks a question or posits a theory is "suggesting" the question or theory to be true. That's the box you're in now.

That's checkmate, counsel.

This place descends to pathetic many times. And is specifically because of mischaracterizations, misquotes, and misstatements, and blatantly dishonest attempts to create a narrative.

THE FACT IS NO ONE EVER SAID THAT HUDY GOT THE ACCOLADES BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN. NO ONE.

But that doesn't stop the dishonesty. It's literally as if what folks say doesn't matter. When it's a little hot button issue that offends, accuracy doesn't matter.

@elpoyo said -- "but i don’t really get what the hoopla is about Hudy? she’s a female??? is that it???"

But that undeniable fact doesn't matter. He never said it was because of her gender, and neither did I.

Pathetic.

Oh dear, we've offended someone's sensitivities again -- that happens with some when they lose an argument.