Is "douchebag" a hormone?maybe hormonal?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is "douchebag" a hormone?maybe hormonal?
I never once tried to play anything off. Unlike you, I was completely honest. That’s fact, in spite of how much that offends you.You posted both, then tried to play it off when both were pointed out to you. Typical of those who don't know their subject matter.
You would know, little fellow. Love that I intimidate you as much as I do. Are you crying?Is "douchebag" a hormone?
Tim Daniel-Bleacher Report 2017:Lol. Don’t go away mad just because you fell down on this. I’m sure you often look this dumb.
I would also point out that the two aren't mutually exclusive.They can both be true. Knight could have thought that about Wooden and just not voiced those thoughts publicly until after Wooden made remarks about him. Even if that is the order in which it happened, stating that Wooden's comments caused Knight's comments is purely conjecture and can't be proved.It proved exactly what I claimed- that RMK's disdain for JW is because Wooden ran a dirty program by allowing Gilbert to run unchecked. Those were RMK's words in the interview with Joe Buck, which I offered such link as evidence. Those exact words are quoted in the article. These facts are irrefutable. No Bias. Just facts.
Your claim- that RMK's true disdain has nothing to do with Gilbert but actually JW's remarks that he didn't like RMK's coaching methods, has yet to be proven by you.
If this were a court case, the judge would have dismissed your side's argument early.
Still Waiting.
That's funny that you think you intimidate...well, anyone.In your head, ankle biter. I love that I intimidate you this much.
Wonder why BK waited so long to criticize Wooden, even choosing to do so after his death? Hmm.Tim Daniel-Bleacher Report 2017:
Former Indiana University head basketball coach Bob Knight criticized UCLA legend John Wooden for his lack of control over Bruins booster Sam Gilbert when it came to recruiting.
Knight made pointed remarks during an interview for Undeniable with Joe Buck, which is scheduled to air Wednesday night on the Audience Network, per ESPN.com.
"I have a lot of respect for Wooden as a coach, how he coached. He was a good coach," he said. "But from then on, and I don't mind saying it, I don't respect Wooden, because he allowed Sam Gilbert to do whatever it took to recruit kids. And one time he told me, he said, 'I just didn't know how to deal with Sam Gilbert.' And I'm saying to myself, 'I damn sure could have dealt with him.'"
I look forward to Ordfan's equal measure of proof to back up his stance, but not holding my breath.Tim Daniel-Bleacher Report 2017:
Former Indiana University head basketball coach Bob Knight criticized UCLA legend John Wooden for his lack of control over Bruins booster Sam Gilbert when it came to recruiting.
Knight made pointed remarks during an interview for Undeniable with Joe Buck, which is scheduled to air Wednesday night on the Audience Network, per ESPN.com.
"I have a lot of respect for Wooden as a coach, how he coached. He was a good coach," he said. "But from then on, and I don't mind saying it, I don't respect Wooden, because he allowed Sam Gilbert to do whatever it took to recruit kids. And one time he told me, he said, 'I just didn't know how to deal with Sam Gilbert.' And I'm saying to myself, 'I damn sure could have dealt with him.'"
Why do you think I intimidate you so much?That's funny that you think you intimidate...well, anyone.
It's sad that everyone IRL most assuredly laughs at you, and then, when you come on line, you get the same treatment from everyone here.
Well, you don't intimidate me at all, so that was a stupid question. Why are you having such a meltdown today?Why do you think I intimidate you so much?
It’s a classic move, really boosted into the stratosphere thanks to the internet’s omnibeneficent influence: you don’t actually *argue* a point, you rather cast aspersions on - or make outright accusations about - motive, mood, biases, etc.Well, you don't intimidate me at all, so that was a stupid question. Why are you having such a meltdown today?
Wonder why BK waited so long to criticize Wooden, even choosing to do so after his death? Hmm.
That is a possibility, athough it cannot be proven, while Knight's comments about Wooden's dirty program are in clear print above. But to argue that Wooden's program didn't cheat, or that they may have but Wooden had zero knowledge, flies in the face of facts that are decades old.I would also point out that the two aren't mutually exclusive.They can both be true. Knight could have thought that about Wooden and just not voiced those thoughts publicly until after Wooden made remarks about him. Even if that is the order in which it happened, stating that Wooden's comments caused Knight's comments is purely conjecture and can't be proved.
Just put him on ignore and let him have a conversation with himself. Then he can be the smartest guy in the room and intimidate himself.That's funny that you think you intimidate...well, anyone.
It's sad that everyone IRL most assuredly laughs at you, and then, when you come on line, you get the same treatment from everyone here.
I obviously intimidate you. Why is that?Well, you don't intimidate me at all, so that was a stupid question. Why are you having such a meltdown today?
It was a question, just like the one I’ve asked you and that you’ve consistently avoided. Why is that, especially since you weren’t able to prove anything you claimed?Wonder? That's all you've got?
There is weak evidence, and then there is NO evidence. You've got the latter.
Case closed.
False again. Everyone here has seen the evidence. You're on an island alone, surrounded by an ocean of factual reality.It was a question, just like the one I’ve asked you and that you’ve consistently avoided. Why is that, especially since you weren’t able to prove anything you claimed?
It was a question, just like the one I’ve asked you and that you’ve consistently avoided. Why is that, especially since you weren’t able to prove anything you claimed?
No, you really don’t. I’m not sure why you would think that, unless it’s a manifestation of your obvious delusions of grandeur.I obviously intimidate you. Why is that?
I’m dropping out of this conversation. You’re making me feel very uncomfortable and I enjoy life too much to run the risk of having it snuffed out by a simmering lunatic on the verge of deep state neurosis with a nagging chip on his shoulder. Send in the clowns, Harvey, it’s that time, again. Time for the candy-colored clown they call The Sandman!Yet BK only criticized JW after Wooden made remarks that Knight found negative. That’s not coincidental to anyone who knows BK. And Wooden has never been accused of cheating, though I’m sure you can list the allegations that he personally violated the rules. You’re going to have a fruitless search.
Why do act as though I do?No, you really don’t. I’m not sure why you would think that, unless it’s a manifestation of your obvious delusions of grandeur.
Uh, you betcha.I’m dropping out of this conversation. You’re making me feel very uncomfortable and I enjoy life too much to run the risk of having it snuffed out by a simmering lunatic on the verge of deep state neurosis with a nagging chip on his shoulder. Send in the clowns, Harvey, it’s that time, again. Time for the candy-colored clown they call The Sandman!
No, it doesn’t prove your point. Show me where Wooden cheated, as you claimed. Proof.Here's a second article, written 7 yrs before the Buck interview. Again, proving my point. The evidence keeps mounting. Wooden even does some half hearted back peddling on the issue in the last paragraph.
Meanwhile, I can't find anything that would every marginally validate your hypothesis that RMK was bitter at Wooden for his critiques of Knight's coaching ways. All you have presented are the voices in your head.
Case closed...even tighter.
https://www.mlive.com/benchwarmer/2010/06/john_wooden_wasnt_shy_about_di.html
Then post verifiable facts that Wooden cheated. Back it up or go away.False again. Everyone here has seen the evidence. You're on an island alone, surrounded by an ocean of factual reality.
I may not be able to spell, but I can defend my arguments with verifiable facts. You cannot. At this point it's beyond obvious and you're embarrassing yourself.
JW and UCLA were dirty. RMK called him out on it. End of story.
Case Closed.
People with delusions of grandeur tend to believe everyone else is intimidated by them. Classic symptom.Why do act as though I do?
I never referenced anyone else. I asked why you were intimidated by me. Your deflection is the classic example. Please answer the question.People with delusions of grandeur tend to believe everyone else is intimidated by them. Classic symptom.
so you've given up on the argument of what was really in RMK's mind when he was critical of JW? Ok good call your part. We'll move on to the next topic....give me a few minutes. As Cap told Iron Man...I can do this all day.Then post verifiable facts that Wooden cheated. Back it up or go away.
Not at all. If you know anything about BK, this wouldn’t be such a difficult things for you to see.so you've given up on the argument of what was really in RMK's mind when he was critical of JW? Ok good call your part. We'll move on to the next topic....give me a few minutes. As Cap told Iron Man...I can do this all day.
Not at all. If you know anything about BK, this wouldn’t be such a difficult things for you to see.
I did. You're just to deluded to realize it.I never referenced anyone else. I asked why you were intimidated by me. Your deflection is the classic example. Please answer the question.
You’ve offered no proof that Wooden cheated, and he was never charged with or convicted of NCAA violations during his time as UCLA head coach. That’s a fact you continue to ignore.sorry, I deal with facts, not speculation.
Just so I have them clear in my head, are these your two main arguments you are fighting for?
1. Wooden and UCLA were clean
2. RMK disliked what JW said about him personally, not because he thought answer to #1 above was 'hell no'
??
Why do you consistently behave as if I intimidate you if, in fact, I do not?I did. You're just to deluded to realize it.
I don't. It's just those pesky delusions of grandeur fooling you.Why do you consistently behave as if I intimidate you if, in fact, I do not?
Is English your second language?Why do act as though I do?
Of course you. That’s not really a matter of debate. I’m just trying to determine why I intimidate you. It’s an internet message board, after all.I don't. It's just those pesky delusions of grandeur fooling you.
No, I accidentally omitted a word. Is this yet another sign of your feelings of intimidation, which you frequently display here (an internet message board)?Is English your second language?
Is English your second language?Of course you. That’s not really a matter of debate. I’m just trying to determine why I intimidate you. It’s an internet message board, after all.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your practice of pointing out other posters' typing errors.No, I accidentally omitted a word. Is this yet another sign of your feelings of intimidation, which you frequently display here (an internet message board)?
You don't, but I'm sure you think you do.Of course you. That’s not really a matter of debate. I’m just trying to determine why I intimidate you. It’s an internet message board, after all.
The difference, if you bothered to look, is that I acknowledge them (most are spell check related, though it’s my error for failing to proof read thoroughly). Of course, the errors I point are rarely related to spell check. Obviously, this is yet another demonstration of how intimidated I make you. Sorry about that.I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your practice of pointing out other posters' typing errors.
I'm sure that's another symptom of your delusions of grandeur.