If you were objective and fair in your reflections on this series then voters are well informed. Besides, they are a smart bunch. They can make up their own minds.
I was. I would expect that you would be as well. But if, as you imply, voters are just going to vote for whoever regardless of the debate, why are we doing this?
Do you at all think that the reason why I'm not arguing with you is that I see how superior your team is in every area, as you have detailed in your argument?
This just in - describing why your team has an advantage in EIGHT of NINETEEN starting spots now means that you think your team "is superior in every area"!
Nothing's open-and-shut. If you disagree so much with something I said, then you should explain why. "My bios are my arguments" is a lame way to conduct oneself in a finals series.
And considering we've had GMs here who've ACTUALLY gone and declared an advantage for themselves at every position up and down the lineup, I'm really surprised that NOW is the time you've chosen to apparently make some sort of a stand against comparative series debate.
I never said that. My main point was not to criticize my level of effort because I put a lot into assembling bios that show the greatness of the players.
OK, I won't criticize your efforts. Because it appears you're actually making an effort to
not talk about the players in the series. You're doing a great job of that. I still question why, though.
Spirited? I appreciate when GMs compare lines and match-ups, imagining their own team's strengths and weaknesses when playing in a series. I like the comraderie, and RESPECT for the players and the GMs, of dialogue and appreciation of each other's line-up.
This series started like any other series between any two GMs sharing mutual respect. There was nothing in my opening volley that signified a lack of camaraderie, respect, or appreciation, and I'm pretty sure I've been very vocal in my desire for dialogue.
I do not like the oneupmanship bravado of trying to convince the gallery of how much better one's own is over another by putting down the other. Heck, even line-up assassinations have traditionally been reflective, balanced appreciations of line-ups, not a pick by pick demonstration of how much better one thinks oneself over another.
Describing the advantages one's lineup has is "oneupsmanship" now?
I don't want every little thing I say to be criticized and twisted against me. But alas, that is what I should expect with some GMs. I regret not having much time to converse with Rob Scuderi last round, as he was quite reasonable and respectful in his analyses. I thought the world of his St. Louis Eagles. It was a quality squad.
I agree Rob Scuderi is a great GM.
Do you expect every person to debate exactly the same?
I don't have the stomach to battle an enemy, even if it's in mock form. I want to have friendly discussions of the history of the great game without egos or I'm-better-than-you kind of posturing. Some enjoy that, heck, politics is full of such types. Fine. But I don't roll like that.
That's not my problem that you took a run of the mill series debate as "ego" or "I'm-better-than-you" posturing. There is no such attitude in my posts.
I'm genuinely disappointed that you've robbed me of the chance to have a real MLD final.
