Camby = Kareem

[Lurker]

Title had to jumpstart everyone's brain this morning...

Camby can tie the record for most seasons winning the blocked shots title.  This will be Camby's 4th time which ties the record held by Jabbar and Mark Eaton.

I thought this was somewhat humorous coming after Randy trashed Eaton the other day.  So maybe the real comparison is that Camby = Eaton.

[WayOutWest]

Title had to jumpstart everyone's brain this morning...

Camby can tie the record for most seasons winning the blocked shots title.  This will be Camby's 4th time which ties the record held by Jabbar and Mark Eaton.

I thought this was somewhat humorous coming after Randy trashed Eaton the other day.  So maybe the real comparison is that Camby = Eaton.

The problem was all Eaton could do is be "big".  Did you even see Eaton play?  I think your Eaton opinion is humorous.

What I find humorous is that Camby used to be on the Knicks.  I wonder if the Knicks could use a decent defensive center who is over 6'8?

[Skandery]

Ummmm . . . no.

[Lurker]

Ummmm . . . no.

Are you sure?

Maybe you should sleep on it.

[jn]

Nope, Skandery is right.  Most teams could use a player like Camby.  The Knicks could misuse him.  Isaiah would probably have him backing up Jared Jeffries at the 3.

[Skandery]

I find myself confused betwixt the varied inclinations of Lurker's response:

I shall proceed to dilineate:

I replied, "ummmm . . .  no"
 
1 - this could be in response to the title of the thread Camby = Kareem.
2 - this could be in response to WOWs question of whether NY could use a defensive C over 6'8.

Lurker responded in a sarcastic tone, "Are you sure.  Maybe you should sleep on it"

1 - the sarcasm implied could undertone the feeling that Kareem is so much better than Camby, that the slight consideration represented by the momentary "ummmm" is unwarranted and simply the "no" would have sufficed. 

2 - the sarcasm could also mean that NY could definitely use a defensive C over 6'8 and I'm going to need to sleep on it to see what should be obvious. 

jn then responds that I am right and the ineptness of the NY organization would render the usefulness of Camby summarily ineffective.  Since I can deduce that my "ummmm . . . no" was in response to the suggestion that Camby = Kareem, I read Lurker to be sarcastically mocking me.  jn following the natural second progression has confused me about how exactly Lurker is making fun of me. 

My head hurts.   

[Lurker]

I find myself confused betwixt the varied inclinations of Lurker's response:

I shall proceed to dilineate:

I replied, "ummmm . . .  no"
 
1 - this could be in response to the title of the thread Camby = Kareem.
2 - this could be in response to WOW question of whether NY could use a defensive C over 6'8.

Lurker responded in a sarcastic tone, "Are you sure.  Maybe you should sleep on it"

1 - the sarcasm implied could undertone the feeling that Kareem is so much better than Camby, that the slight consideration represented by the momentary "ummmm" is unwarranted and simply the "no" would have sufficed. 

2 - the sarcasm could also mean that NY could definitely use a defensive C over 6'8 and I'm going to need to sleep on it to see what should be obvious. 

jn then responds that I am right and the ineptness of the NY organization would render the usefulness of Camby summarily ineffective.  Since my "ummmm . . . no" was in response to the suggestion that Camby = Kareem, I read Lurker to be sarcastically mocking me.  jn following the natural second progression has confused me about how exactly Lurker is making fun of me. 

My head hurts.   

Just for the record...I read Skander's response as a hestitant "no" to the title thread.  Which is why I asked if he was sure.

And I was not serious in comparing Camby to Kareem (not even Kareem Rush).  I would put Camby closer to Eaton than I would to Kareem.  Just that Camby has more offensive skills than Eaton...while both were solid defenders with mad shot blocking abilities.

[Skandery]

Just for the record...I read Skander's response as a hestitant "no" to the title thread.  Which is why I asked if he was sure.

Okay, sarcastic mockery of my own brand of sarcasm.  Thought so.

Nuts, I wish I could take the credit for being right, jn. 

[WayOutWest]

Nuts, I wish I could take the credit for being right, jn. 

The beauty of jn's post is that it incapsulated every possibility that Skandy's tiny over worked mind could imagine.  It's like one of the dozen episodes where some Trek Dork Captain ripped the space time fabric allowing millions of starships to exist on the same plain of reality at the same time, only to find that only one single starship had the ....uggg....nevermind!