Celtics vs. Lakers - The Final Chapter: michaeljohn wins by concession and logic

[rexhamer]

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Oh, by the way...I found a major sport right here in America where the team with the most titles most certainly isn't the best. I am kicking myself for not remembering this earlier. At least you can stop your hunt now to prove most championships always means best.

Well ......... Are you going to keep it a secret?

[michaeljohn]

Originally Posted by rexhamer

Well ......... Are you going to keep it a secret?

Why should I tell you? You say you want to keep this fight going but are finding every excuse not to address the issues at hand. Your time is over. Put out or hush up.

You claim you refuted my blog. You refuted nothing, you disagreed with it and stated your opinion. 2 months running now...

I, however, refuted your blog. I exposed it for all of its hypocrisy, flawed logic, and contradictions of your own criterea, i.e. examining the entire history of the NBA.

You came here and lied, I proved that as well. You haven't even apologized for lying. Whatever you post, I will refute that as well. Haven't I shown I do that already?

Your 17-3, 9-2, and 14-15 are refuted independently, and disallowed as they are speculation on your part. The scorecard stands, Lakers hold all significant advantages except for titles. That's the one thing the Celtics still have. Everything else in the scorecard is historical fact. Your last article claimed you refuted all of them. Last I saw you just said you diminished their importance. That's something for a neutral fan to determine, not you, and it certainly doesn't mean a refutation. Hell, it's obvious already the articles didn't go to neutral fans!

Give it up. I won this debate. I proved it is an argument now, where it wasn't 20 years ago, and I beat you at your 3 main points you stated here all those months ago (17-3, 9-2, 14-15). Oh, and this thread, that was a major ass whooping on you. Your mathematical naivety doomed you.

[michaeljohn]

Well, still waiting for rexhamer...Let's see what he had to see at the other site. My last article was posted on April 23rd, here is what he said on May 2, inresponse to me saying the old arguments (17-3, 9-2, 14-15) have been laid to rest for good:

Originally Posted by rexhamer

May 2, 2009
6:58 AM "arguments have been laid to rest for good"?

You need to go back and re-read my blog. All your points were addressed and refuted.

I win Internet arguments becuase I do extensive research, post stats to support my case, and publish lengthy articles. You have fallen into the trap of many Lakers fans - you did not read the entire blog. You cannot "cherry pick" the parts of the blog that you want to address.

Go back and read the entire blog.

This is a point where he was mimicking me. As to the highlighted part, I went through it word by word and refuted everything.

Originally Posted by rexhamer

May 2, 2009
3:11 PM You need to go back and re-read my blog again.

Just because you say you refuted something doesn't mean it is refuted. My argument is a serious blow to Lakers fans who thought the old arguments didn't hold up anymore. I have proven they still do.

Go back and re-read my blog, only you should read it thoroughly, don't just skim it. All you points are refuted. Your latest blog changes nothing.

We are still waiting for him to "prove" what's in bold. Guess what, he can't! If he tries, I will refute that a well, besides, there is nothing in his blog to back up his claim!

Then there is this gem from this thread:

Originally Posted by rexhamer

I could easily have gone though MJ’s entire final blog and refuted all his points for the third time if I chose to. But I will demonstrate that it is completely unnecessary.

First, his second article ignored a lot of new evidence! I had to repeat it! Again, flawed logic on his part, he refutes things without even addressing them! If it was so easy, why didn't he do it? He can't and he knows it. Instead, he crafted this thread, chalk full of nothing but flawed logic and an avoidance of the issues at hand. He even shows his own hypocrisy at several points in thread:

Originally Posted by rexhamer

I thought about showing a few examples of MJ’s flaccid argument, such as the fact that his “scorecard” includes Lakers advantages of more wins and fewer losses in conference championships, yet only show Finals wins as an advantage for the Celtics. Where are the Finals losses of the Lakers? Clearly, the results of the NBA Finals carry much more significance than the conference championships.

Hypocrisy in bold. this has been refuted, he has never challenged it and it is his opinion. An opinion is not a refutation.

Originally Posted by rexhamer

And here is the coup de grace I promised. Take note of the results of neutral observers to Blog 5(MJ). This is the blog he claims has refuted all my points. My examples noted above aside for the moment, you will find that neutral replies have come in at 5-1 for the Celtics. That’s 5 out of 6, that’s 83% in favor of the Celtics after reviewing and evaluating Blog 5(MJ). MJ has repeatedly whined that I haven’t refuted his blog.

I already proved your tallies mean nothing. Since you can't refute my blog, you tried changing the subject and shot yourself in the foot! Address my blog, quit ducking me!

Oh, and one last comment in my last blog. This cued me in he was going to try to use the replies to the blogs to claim victory. More flawed logic, ending the game in the first quarter! Oh, I said that already!:

Originally Posted by rexhamer

May 2, 2009
6:32 PM One time, when I was ten years old, I had an argument with a friend of mine. He said vanilla was the best flavor of ice cream. I said it was chocolate.

We then asked 10 of our friends what they liked and 8 said chocolate. I win arguments because I do research. That is how I have proven that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in NBA history. Even stubborn Lakers fans now agree with me.

You can concede any time. There is no shame in being No. 2!

Apparently you don't have a clue how to do statistical research, you got owned on that! your proof:

I could say a lot more here, but let's examine the whole story....

If my points for Lakers supremacy are incorrect, and the overstatements by rexhamer on Celtics success are actually true, why hasn't he, or any other Celtics fan stepped forward to prove this? I asked him this earlier, and he said maybe they don't want to take the time! Crap, something as important as finding out the Celtics are now number two to the Lakers is extremely important to Boston fans.

Thousands of Celtics fans have seen the war. No one has refuted me. rexhamer can't win this fight, he has proven that. I need to find a better debating partner. Who's up to the task?

Give it up rexhamer, you are beaten. You can still believe the Celtics are number on even though they aren't.

[rexhamer]

Let’s begin with an acknowledgement – since we both “rested our cases” prior to the completion of the 2009 NBA playoffs, I will refer to the numbers we have been debating for a year now; i.e., “17-14”, etc. We can deal with new numbers later when I address the Hollinger rankings and the ESPN poll.

First – some housekeeping items to note.

1.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

We agreed to disagree on “Overwhelming Consensus”

Actually this is factually incorrect. What you said on 4/18/09 was:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

It isn’t important to the debate. Would you like to agree to disagree on this point?”

I never accepted this offer, and never would as I will always contend that it was an exaggerated boast to attempt to embellish your case. Like many others, this statement will come back to haunt you.

I would point out that purposely stating factually inaccurate information is considered by many to be a ……..lie! But I will cut you some slack on this one – maybe it was an honest error.

[rexhamer]

2. Two other curious statements:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

However, there is one key point I made in our debate that I can claim victory in, and rexhamer has confirmed it. … 20 years ago, it was no contest who was the better franchise between the Lakers and the Celtics, it was Boston. Today, opinion is mixed, it’s open for debate.

and

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Again, I point out, I win because I made a debate out of it.

Why would you claim victory on a point that was never in dispute? I conceded that the Lakers have made up ground on (but have not surpassed) the Celtics over the last twenty years in the very beginning of Blog 2(Rex). This would be akin to me claiming victory because I demonstrated that the Celtics were the most dominant team of the 60’s! Duh!

You can only be desperate for any straw to grasp in this debate.

3.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Let’s get the lying part out of the way. I posted it in the smack talk thread, so certainly he should have seen it. He is incorrect in where the lying part is to be found.

Sorry – but when these accusations were made the thread was an NBA thread. You created the smack talk thread later. This is another clear example of purposeful factually inaccurate information. Once can be an error, twice it becomes a pattern.

4.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I suggest you fight me here if you plan to continue, and not there!

What a surprise – you would rather fight here, where no one cares. Why would you want to take the fight to the blog site, where you have an 83% DIS-approval rating!

5.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Yeah, but much of rexhamer’s hypocritical argument is based on selecting the most favorable of 60 years of the Celtics and creating primary advantages with them

No, I have used all 60 years to create primary categories. Once again, factually incorrect information.

[rexhamer]

6.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my case.

Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

7.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! This has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics!”

I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.

8.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics.

Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

[rexhamer]

Now, on to Blog 5(MJ)

I noted that in Blog 5(MJ), you introduced the notion that you will use IEttR to refute many of my statements. I gave you a chance to provide some specific examples and all you offer is Mark Furman, which was the example to explain what IEttR meant. Therefore, your recent reply acknowledges that you don’t actually have ANY examples to offer relative to our debate. It doesn’t serve much purpose to announce that you will demonstrate “exceptions that disprove the rule” when you don’t have any exceptions! And thus, much of what you claim refuted 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 is now out the window.

I will note here your attempt at what I will call “the old switcheroo”. You have been repeatedly frustrated in your efforts to find real world examples of “most successful” teams with fewer championships and a sub-.500 record in their championship round. So you have tried to turn this around and make me find some.

First of all – the Lakers are YOUR team and it is your contention that they can be “more successful” with the negatives noted above. The burden of proof remains on YOU to provide supporting evidence. Your attempt at “the old switcheroo” isn’t fooling anyone. You also weaken your case with the following contradictory statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I feel confident that any thorough investigation will uncover many cases where the most successful team in its domain will have fewer championships than a competitor.

If there are “many cases”, why couldn’t you find them? Why would it take “exhaustive research” to find any of these “many cases”? Besides, what would prevent me from simply stating, “I have done a thorough investigation and have found none”? Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to find these examples.

And then you tried this:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

It may be possible in college football. I know of a few universities that keep losing bowl games. We can equate bowl games with finals I suppose. You might find in spite of the losses, they are the most successful team. It’s a big world, have fun!

Sorry – but the notion of national championships and bowl games does not hold. The formal system of BCS national championships has only been around a few years. And how would you determine most successful? Princeton has the most mythical championships based on the very early days of college football, and they have never been to a bowl game.

Equating bowl games with finals? I think not, as any prominent program with a winning record gets to go to a bowl game these days and most all of these games have absolutely nothing with the national championship.

Your erroneous approach to IEttR is summarized with this statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

See, my whole point of IEttR is because rexhamer makes his points using always or never scenarios. In this case it was left up to him to prove every champion with the most titles is always the most successful because that is exactly what he claims

You could not be more wrong about IEttR – the whole point is for YOU to find the exceptions! My generalizations about 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 were backed up by a comparison of the Celtics, Yankees and Canadiens. If you want to dispute that generalization, find the exception!

But again – you are the self-proclaimed king of Internet research – why can’t YOU find examples to make your case? The answer – they don’t exist. And we’re all waiting with bated breath for the big secret of your claim to have found one.

[rexhamer]

The scorecard – I gave you a chance to explain the obvious hypocrisy of including conference finals wins & losses, while counting only championship finals wins (where are the Lakers’ 15 finals losses?). Your response:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Gee, the Celtics hold only one advantage, that’s why their title edge is listed.

But what about the Lakers Finals losses? When you don’t like a rebuttal, you just ignore it. (We will see more of this as we go along.) You offered no answer to my question, confirming that your scorecard is biased. It is all based on YOUR opinion of what constitutes a relevant category. Or should I say you have “Cherry Picked” the categories? Hypocrisy rears its ugly head again! This is certainly in conflict with this statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

by creating a scorecard free from bias

Now let’s look at your attempt to remove 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 from the scorecard by speculation.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

First, I would like to say that these categories are placed as relevant and important by Celtics_55’s opinion. They are backed up by facts which I maintain are “Cherry Picked”. Does everyone else think they are as important? Well, Celtics_55 has just told you they do! Let’s expose the flawed logic with this. First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play. The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! If they aren’t Celtics fans, I doubt seriously many of the fans will bring these categories up at all, let alone prominently! Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this! Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!

That in itself immediately and officially eliminates 9-2 and 17-3 from this debate.

Let’s take this in pieces.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

First and foremost, we have the IEttR come into play.

Since I have already shown that you have no actual exceptions, this statement, and any references to your use of this, are refuted.

[rexhamer]

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

The words “any fan” presumes “every fan”. The words “so prominent in any fan’s discussion”, means I can pick “any fans” or you can pick “any fans” and interview them to see what they talk about! ……. Furthermore, since he claims it will happen and be “prominent in any fan’s discussion”, he is determining their relevance by…drum roll please…..SPECULATION!

You claim my use of the terms “any’ and “all” is speculation as there is no proof that any and all fans agree with me. You are confusing a speculative statement with a generalization.

It would not be speculation for me to say “Any fan would rather be a champion than a runner-up”. Nor is it speculation to say “All fans would prefer to defeat their traditional rival in a playoff series than lose to them”. I do not have to go to forums to prove these statements. These are logical generalizations that do not need backup evidence. Same with my statements.

I have previously noted that Lakers fans near-automatic response to which team was better in the 80’s has always been “Lakers, 5-3 in championships and 2-1 head-to-head.” You don’t think when fans of the Giants, Cowboys and 49er’s get together to determine who has been more successful, the subject of their respective head-to-head playoff meetings does not come up? You don’t think the Steelers are extremely proud of their 6-0 record in the Super Bowl and the Bills are a little embarrassed about being 0-4? Logical generalizations such as these matter when developing relevant categories.

I am sure you have read through the replies to the Hollinger article. There are numerous references to 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15. I would say that refutes this statement:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Check any basketball forum. They talk about every basketball notion you can imagine, except this!

Tell me the last time you were at a basketball forum that talked about a year-by-year analysis of the performance of two teams? Yet you include this in your scorecard. This is just more evidence of the bias of your scorecard. You have based the relevant categories on YOUR opinion. Once again we note the hypocrisy of a statement of yours.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I don’t think we should allow opinions to determine relevant categories.

Your scorecard categories have all been determined by YOUR opinion!

[rexhamer]

But to be fair, I will concede that one should avoid the use of “any/all/always/never” in a debate. So let’s try this. Wherever you see “any” or “all”, substitute any one of the following phrases: “the vast majority of”, “virtually all” or “most every”. This more accurately describes a generalization. In this way the thrust of my statements will remain the same. Because I guess it is possible that a certain minority number of fans (Lakers, Bills?) do not see finals records as relevant!

So, in summary – you have already removed the following from your scorecard - the fewer championships theoretical scenario, the Olympics analogy, and financial value (I loved that one. After presenting it at least four times and getting refuted at every turn, you tell us you were only kidding all along! LOL!). Thus, the rebuttal above pretty much refutes Blog 5 (MJ) in its entirety. And I didn’t even break a sweat!

And I will also take this opportunity to point out another curious habit of your debate technique. I first addressed your “fewer championship theoretical scenario” in Blog 2(Rex) by crafting an equally simple theoretical scenario that showed a team with championships over consistency was more successful. You completely ignored that point in Blog 3(MJ), once again presenting your theoretical scenario as a Lakers’ advantage. I pointed the fact that you had ignored my theoretical scenario in Blog 4 (Rex), expecting some type of reply. But in your Blog 5(MJ), in which you claim to have cut and pasted my entire Blog 4(Rex), this section is again purposely missing! I can only presume that your debate technique includes ignoring an opponent’s points that refute one of your points. I will touch on this again later.

And finally:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

17-3, 9-2 and 14-15 were “Cherry Picked” statistics, and proved they didn’t belong in the argument.”

Not only have I put them back in the argument above, to contend that 9-2, 17-3 and 14-15 don’t belong in the argument, but 29-9 and 20-11 do is pure hypocrisy. Oh, that’s right – you don’t care about hypocrisy.

On to the replies’ tabulation and your response.

[rexhamer]

6.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

His stubbornness has not only enabled me to further refute his work, it has allowed me to improve my case.

Improve your case? I guess that is evidenced by the decreasing number of supporting replies for your case as the blogs went on!

7.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Everyone believes the Celtics are the better franchise until they see my side of the story! This has to hurt, seeing people choose the Lakers over the Celtics!”

I can only guess that these “people” are the “17” out of “37-17”, or the “4” out of “18-4” or the “1” out of “5-1”! No, it must really hurt to see people choose the Celtics over the Lakers.

8.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

rexhamer has proven one thing without a doubt: He is an embarrassment to the fan base of the Boston Celtics.

Again, I guess that explains why other Celtics fans at the blog site fans showed consistent support for my argument while Lakers fans abandoned yours. In fact, looking back at your five desperate pleas for support, I would note that not only did Lakers fans fail to come to your aid with blog replies, they didn’t even acknowledge your request on the Lakers’ pages. Not even a “You know we support you” or a “Thanks, but no thanks.” You were being shunned like an Amish adulterer.

Or better yet, it was like the scene near the end of ‘Animal House’ where John Belushi tries to rally the Delta frat boys into action (“Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!”). At the end of his speech, Belushi shouts’ “Let’s go!”, and bounds out the door, only to return disheartened when nobody follows him.

[rexhamer]

So you know a little about the field of Statistics! I emphasize the word “little” as in “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. You attempt at the use of statistics in this way will turn out to be painful for you. But did you think this was going to impress me? Intimidate me? Haven’t you figured out by know that I am not the average Internet rube you must be used to dealing with?

Apparently you know only a little about statistics, and do not understand the difference between Inferential Statistics and Descriptive Statistics. Or do you know the difference and were attempting to be intentionally misleading? Either way, this will be fun. I will get to the difference between Inferential and Descriptive later.

You claim my tabulation fails due to a lack of randomness and sample size. Let’s take sample size first.

1. Since you know a little about statistics, you know that sample size refers to the required number of examples to ascertain a certain standard deviation. The most commonly accepted standard deviation is ± 5%. You see it in numerous polls. The required sample size to assure that standard deviation is four hundred (400).

So, since you know about statistics and required sample sizes, and are knowledgeable about internet discussions (a Super Moderator!), particularly at the blog site, you know perfectly well that a sample size of 400 would never be achieved. And yet, knowing this, you repeatedly offered your case up to be judged. Here are some of your statements that I will lump together for brevity:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

“The Lakers will hold all other significant advantages. Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide.”

“Also, opinion is best left for the reader’s evaluation of historical data. When a final scorecard is listed below, they will be free to make a choice.”

“I was relying on the masses to see through your biased statistics and take my side.”

“Isn’t it up to the reader to determine how they value the numerous non-title advantages the Lakers own over the Celtics?”

Note the use of the phrases “to decide”, “make a choice”, take my side”, and “to determine”.

You now are claiming that the sample size is not large enough to draw any conclusion about judgments. You know quite well that this is an example of an ex post facto argument. And don’t try to say that legal parameters of an argument are not pursuant here as, on 4/14/09, when you first introduced the notion of IEttR, you gave us:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Also, in a court of law, cases are won when reasonable doubt is presented.

Sorry, but you already set the standard for judgment of this debate relative to expected sample sizes. You cannot change the rules now.

[rexhamer]

2. In addition, none of the above statements comes with any conditions about sample size. Had you said something to the effect of, “Then, as my last blog stated, it will be left to the reader to decide, providing a statistically significant sample size is achieved”, we may have a different discussion. In the absence of any such conditions, you have essentially waived your right to impose them after the fact.

3. Many months ago you proclaimed:

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Overwhelming consensus on the Internet is that the Lakers are the most successful franchise.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “consensus” as “The judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.” Note the term “judgment”. Therefore, you were claiming by this statement that a judgment had been rendered, knowing full well that the sample size fell far short of 400.

4. In the aftermath of tabulating the replies at the blog site, I have recently countered that there is overwhelming consensus on the Internet that the Celtics are the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA. This statement is clearly made with an even larger sample size than when you made yours. So if you were setting the standard for sample sizes with your original statement, mine (with a much larger sample size) carries far more weight.

5. Look, this is an Internet debate, not a graduate course in Statistics. Your attempt to refute my tabulation in this manner indicates you have no legitimate response for the figures themselves.

As for randomness, all the same points apply.

[rexhamer]

Now back to Inferential Statistics vs. Descriptive Statistics. Inferential Statistics refers to making claims or conclusions about a population based on sample data from that population. Descriptive Statistics refers to summarizing and displaying data so we can quickly obtain an overview of that data. You have attempted to impose the rules of Inferential Statistics on to my use of the tabulation, which is an example of Descriptive Statistics.

For further clarification, inferential statistics are most commonly used in election polls. A Gallup Poll, for instance, of likely voters a week before an election may show one candidate with a 60-40 lead. Within the framework of the standard deviations (usually ± 5%), this poll is making a prediction that the general election results will mirror the poll.

I have made no such claims in my tabulation. I would never contend that the quantity of replies allows us to make any prediction as to how all sports fans, or even all NBA fans, or even fans at the blog site feel. I merely presented that results that we have available to examine. And those results indicate the Celtics have been judged to be the most successful franchise in the history of the NBA.

I would like to say nice try, but it really wasn’t.

[rexhamer]

A few other points about your reply.

1.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I repeat his entire new article, excepting a portion that won’t be needed.

It is curious how you determined what would not be needed, because an entire section missing – the part where I introduce the notion of a trend towards the Celtics with my introduction of Blog 2(Rex), and of “neutral” replies. Hmmm. Ignoring an opponent’s valid point. Haven’t we seen that somewhere before?

2.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

He is basing his “victory” on the replies. this is akin to saying Orlando won last night because they were ahead 24-22 after one quarter.

What you’re implying is that we should only tabulate the replies of everyone who has seen and read all five blogs. First of all, even if someone replied to Blog 5(MJ) there is now way to know with certainty they read all five. Secondly, if we limit the tabulation to those replies posted after Blog 5(MJ), the count is 8-1 overall, and 5-1 neutral in favor of the Celtics. (Ah! Now we know why you omitted this portion of my post!). And before you try to dispute 5-1 with “Treya’s” change of heart, he has done so after the recent championship, which is a different set of circumstances. When evaluating OUR debate, he chose the Celtics.

But if we were to take your objection a bit further with your Orlando analogy, you would have us only count points scored in the fourth quarter. Last time I checked, the outcome of a basketball game was determined by the CUMULATIVE score from the entire game. Therefore, 37-17 is the cumulative score. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone’s mind was changed from one blog to another (with the exception of “Bleed”).

3.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

I had countless instances of support.

Really? Where? Certainly not anywhere they could be tabulated.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Not everyone posts in a blog.

That’s right – which is why the only accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the argument is to count those that do. It is a pretty sad commentary on your alleged support that not a single Lakers fan would make that tiny extra effort to post a reply after your five pleas.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

At the blog site, a reply tells you it’s been read.

No – a reply tells you that it has been read AND the reader may have been so moved by the points made to render a judgment and indicate such.

4.

Originally Posted by michaeljohn

Very few people saw my most powerful post ever!”

But apparently enough of them saw it to reply 8-1 in favor of the Celtics!

Now on to the real fun part – a revelation so to speak!