Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
Incredibly??? I don't think so.
When people post links (here, facebook, blogs, whatever) it's almost one of two varieties... "Look at this crazy thing, can you believe this happened" - the poster agreeing with whatever the article said. or "Look at what this idiot is saying" - the poster disagreeing with the article.
You did neither. The fair assumption is that you agreed. Especially given that you argued in support of part of it in further posts.
Very rare is the "I have no opinion on this post, but I'm linking it anyway" If you think the reader should assume that you were posting but had no opinion... perhaps you are being incredibly naive.
|
Jesus H. Christ.
By posting the link, all I wanted to do was get your opinions. I pointed out facts, without bias, that we can know to be true. I made my opinion based on the facts we know, both from the video and the box score. And I made my opinion known.
I've said in this thread that there's no way we can know if Calipari had anything to do with it.
Yes I did say I think some "funny business" went on. Based on the facts we know, that's my opinion. That's of course assuming the officials made a mistake in this situation and didn't get the correct shooter. But we all know what happens when you we assume.
By the way, the fair assumption would be to not assume anything about my opinion, but to ask what it is.
Kentucky says that they argued that Poythress should be the shooter, and the officials agreed. IF, if Kentucky was attempting to manipulate the officials, shame on them, and shame on the officials for allowing it to happen. I think we all know how important getting the shooter in a bonus situation is.
Videos get posted on here all the time asking for "thoughts". Block charge plays, etc. When someone argues their opinion, they ought to be treated fairly. Is that too much to ask?