Posts by Ryan Vaughn7

Casey White13 said:I always tell my friends when they visit from the States during the summer (I have quite a few who moved over there back during the war years)... I tell them, hey, do me a favor and grab me a Houston Dynamo jersey from the MLS shop. I’ll cover the $69.99 myself. And I’ll even buy you a coffee.

Just tell them to get you the away kit instead. It's actually pretty sharp, whereas the home one isn't much to look at.
Speaking of MLS, I can't help but wonder what our Dinamo would think of borrowing this Kansas jersey http://www.mlsgear.com/28192.html

Brandon Ramirez said:I’m not entirely sure which sub-forum this belongs in—mods, please feel free to move this if I’ve got the wrong spot. Thanks. 🙂

The current global crisis has been weighing on my mind lately. So many people are losing their jobs, facing eviction, drowning in unpaid bills, and even having to give up long-time pets just to get by. The stress and pressure are just relentless...
I honestly have so much respect for individuals who can handle these kinds of life-altering setbacks and still find a way to navigate a completely new reality.
I'm curious—how would you all handle a situation like this?
Would you turn to illegal work, try making and selling something, liquidate everything you own, or focus on protecting your kids, pets, or whatever else matters most?
What would be the absolute last thing you'd ever give up—the one thing you'd hold onto even if you were living on nothing but bread and water?

For me, giving up my pets would be the hardest part; I'd rather go hungry than see them suffer. But honestly, losing my phone would also hit me incredibly hard—I'm a total addict when it comes to the internet and staying connected with people. It sounds silly to some, I know, but I don't think I could handle that level of isolation on top of everything else. You need some kind of outlet to stay sane, right?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
🙂

For me, my dog isn't even on the list of things I could give up. It's just not an option. And if we're talking about what comes last on the list? That would definitely be cigarettes.

Žan Tabak (this whole debate about basketball players actually reminded me of him). He’s a three-time European club champion, an NBA champion, and an Olympic silver medalist. Yet, if you look at his actual impact on all those achievements, it feels almost non-existent. He spent half his life in the NBA, averaging maybe five points and three and a half rebounds per game.

Raymond Harris4 said:Jason Fisher78 seems like a sharp guy based on his posts (I've caught him weighing in on politics, too).

I noticed the same thing about him.

Carl Garcia22 said:Honestly, hats off to Jason Fisher78. He laid out so many undeniable facts, while everyone else struggled to bring even a single solid point to the table to counter him.

Screw you, Carl Garcia22. Saying "almost" nobody...

Jason Fisher78 said:To give you an example, look at how ESPN back in '98 listed Jordan as one of the main reasons they won the NCAA championship in 1982. It was right when Jordan was at the absolute peak of his god-like status, so everything he ever did—past or present—had to be framed at that level. But honestly? He didn't decide that title for them like everyone claims. He wasn't even having his best performance in those Final Fours, and truthfully, he wasn't even one of the greatest college players ever. They just credited him heavily to build the myth. Back in '82, James Worthy was actually the star of the University of North Carolina. He made All-American honors, while Jordan didn't even make his conference's All-Conference team. Worthy led the squad in scoring that season, during the Final Four, and in the championship game where he dropped 28 points. He was named Final Four MVP and the best player in the East. In the closing moments, he actually stripped the ball from Georgetown's Fred Brown to seal the 63-62 win (Jordan hit the winning jumper, but not at the buzzer—it was 15 seconds left, and Worthy didn't block Brown like Žan Pregovšek blocked the monter during that EuroLeague final between Panathinaikos and FC Barcelona in Paris back in '96, which ended 67-66. If that had happened, it likely would have been 62-64).

Anyway, nobody was talking about Worthy; they were all busy writing about how Jordan led the team to victory. Led them! After that, Worthy moved on to the NBA, while Jordan stayed behind in college. How many titles did Jordan win without Worthy? Zero. How many times did he even make a Final Four? Zero. Did Worthy make a Final Four without Jordan? Yes, in 1981, and they went all the way to the finals.

If that isn't exaggerating a sports personality, I don't know what is. ☕

Um, Worthy didn't block anything five seconds before the end. Fred Brown accidentally handed him the ball because he was being subbed out, as you can see here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2Nnc_itdEc
But that’s beside the point. You're cherry-picking stats again. You forgot to mention that in the '82 season, Michael was just a freshman and Worthy was a senior. Jordan averaged 13.5 points and 4.4 rebounds, while Worthy had 15.6 points and 6.3 rebounds. That's not exactly a massive gap. Plus, Worthy's freshman stats were actually lower than Jordan's, and by his senior year, Jordan had already surpassed Worthy's numbers.
And finally, I don't see why it's such a big deal that ESPN called Jordan one of the most deserving contributors to that title. Not *the* most deserving, just one of them. He scored 16 points in the final (second only to James Worthy) and hit the game-winning shot. What more do you need to justify "one of the most deserving"?

Jason Fisher78 said:The question itself is a bit flawed. Which specific stat are we looking at? But if we just speak broadly beyond the playoffs: you've got Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, and in certain categories, even Larry Bird and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Personally, I think everyone on that list except Abdul-Jabbar was better than Jordan.

Maybe we should shift the focus of this whole conversation. It reminds me of what Isiah Thomas once implied—that without his racial identity, he might have just been an average player.

darkpilot9 said:How could you possibly forget those old NBA broadcasts?

It’s impossible to forget them. My only regret is all the morning classes I skipped because I was glued to the TV late into the night. And let's not forget how Cvik would often have neven Bertičević sitting next to him as a color commentator. That guy was basically a walking encyclopedia of NBA / ATP stats. Honestly, he was like having the entire internet at your fingertips before the internet even existed.

Jason Fisher78 said:I’m really pushing back against this media narrative that Michael Jordan just shows up and wins a title immediately. It clearly wasn't like that.

I think you're exaggerating a bit. Honestly, no American media outlet was quite foolish enough to claim Michael Jordan could win a championship all by himself. Especially considering he didn't win anything during those first, what, six or seven seasons? Besides, even Bill Russell didn't play alone. He had Bob Cousy or John Havlicek by his side. And if I recall correctly, they are generally regarded as better players in NBA history than Scottie Pippen.

Jason Fisher78 said:Let’s keep moving. When Michael Jordan came back in '95, the squad was missing both Horace Grant and Dennis Rodman. Grant had moved on to the Orlando Magic and, wouldn't you know it, the Chicago Bulls were led by Michael Jordan only to drop out in the second round against Orlando, losing 4-2. They were out. Now, the nitpickers might argue they actually had a better record the year prior without Michael because they went the distance at 4-3.
If people were claiming they missed Michael so much that they would have won the title in '94 if he hadn't left, how does it make sense that they performed worse after his return than they did without him? Maybe the real secret sauce was Horace Grant's defense rather than Michael's all-around game...☕ Not until Dennis Rodman showed up and proved to be even better than Grant.

I get the impression you're cherry-picking data here, and honestly, statistics are always open to interpretation. It would probably be fair to mention that Michael didn't return until the 63rd game of the season, after being away from a basketball for a year and a half.
And they didn't actually have a better run without him in '94. The fact is, they won the championship the year before, and they didn't that year. You call it a robbery? Fine. But why on earth do you think they "probably" would have cleared the Indiana Pacers? The Pacers were a powerhouse that year with Reggie Miller playing out of his mind, and even the New York Knicks barely scraped by them 4-3 after trailing 2-3. Besides, they still would have had to deal with the Houston Rockets on their way to a title—who ended up winning it all anyway. To me, that feels like a lot of "what-if" speculation.

rowdytinker3 said:Secondly, Michael Jordan in Washington, D.C.? The guy came back to play, and now you’re seriously expecting him to lead a roster of those Wizards underdogs to a championship at age 40?🤣 That’s why he’s overrated.🤣

While we're on the subject, here is a little statistical tidbit. There is only one man in NBA history who managed to drop more than 40 points after turning 40 years old.

To be clear: over 40 points after age 40.

Terry Fisher2 said:Qualifiers for the Olympics, and we're hosting: the US, Iceland, the runner-up from Asia, and third place from the Pan-Americas. The first two advance.

If things go sideways, we could end up with a European champion who wasn't even in the top 4 at the World Cup. Then we’d be heading into qualifiers with the 4th place finisher from this upcoming World Cup—maybe hosted in Sweden or Spain—alongside the Asian runner-up and the third seed from the Pan-Americas. It's a lot of variables.

Anyway, the group is basically set.

So, Japan is in, but who on earth is the third Pan-American team?

Goluža just steered the game to the finish line, keeping everything steady and routine.

hollowwalker142 said:Of course, like I mentioned before, the admins can see everything you've done and how much you've been messing around in my threads.

What do you have to say about those transparently "well-meaning" types?

I can. But honestly, I'm just going to leave you alone with your own thoughts. I don't have any interest in getting dragged into these kinds of ego trips anymore.

hollowwalker142 Asks:
Everything I put in my appeal is the truth. The administration can see exactly how you've been stalling this whole thing. You’d just disappear and then pop back up without having fixed a single thing. It wasn't about making corrections; it was clearly just an attempt to kill the discussion. The original thread actually made sense, but you shut it down anyway. So, I started a new one, and that's when the blatant obstructionism really kicked in.

I don't think your good intentions have anything to do with this. It feels more like bad faith. If you actually meant well, it would have been simple—just two clicks of the mouse to swap my intro texts. You could have just copied and pasted the new thread's opening and moved it over to the old one. Instead, you did this. Your "good intentions" aren't exactly transparent.

Good grief, what an absolute mess. They shut down the first thread, opened a second one, and moved all the posts over in under thirty minutes. And that was all while I was trying to catch the New York City FC game. Pure obstructionism. Honestly, a little less paranoia wouldn't hurt anyone.

I closed the first thread because, frankly, the way it was set up just didn't make sense. It only had four replies before I shut it down. Once you opened the new one, I went ahead and moved those four posts over myself—which, let's be honest, was purely out of the goodness of my heart and took a bit of extra work.
Unfortunately, the server just sorts everything chronologically based on when it's written. There isn't any other way to get your post back to the top besides what I did, which I explained in the edit on leobenov's post. If that feels like I'm giving you a hard time, then fine. I'll be smarter about it next time.

hollowwalker142 said:No no Ryan Vaughn7, we—sorry, *I*—have spent way too much time trying to explain things to you. The last time was during that thread about veterans' organizations, and it was the exact same situation, except back then you wiped out way more of my posts while leaving all the troll comments untouched. I'm not satisfied with how you handled those veteran threads, and honestly, I don't care about your excuses; I only care about how the veteran topics are moderated.

PS. You've already been caught in two lies right here, so why on earth should I believe a word you say? I don't trust you at all, and frankly, I doubt many people will after this.

All reported posts go straight to the moderators' email accounts. Personally, I don't even bother checking my Yahoo mail when I'm actively hanging out on the forum because I can see everything happening in real-time. I only check it if I've been away for a while and need to catch up. Believe it or not, that's just how I do it.
As for the flag issue, I'll say it again: in my view, that wasn't off-topic. Someone asked a legitimate question, we had a solid fifteen-post discussion about it, and the conversation naturally moved forward. There was no trolling or baiting involved.
You have every right to feel frustrated, but it’s important to clarify: nobody was penalized over a flag, including myself. The issue was commenting on the moderation team in places where that isn't allowed—and that only happened after an appeal regarding deleted posts was made.

hollowwalker142 said:Consider that my reaction to how you handled things.🤷 But that isn't the actual issue here; the real problem is what you wrote right here:

The truth is, you only handed out that strike once you saw that I had reported him.

As for the off-topic stuff and your personal opinion—it's only natural that you don't see it as an issue when you were right there participating in it, but what exactly are you trying to claim in this specific post?

Are you actually accepting the request to stop derailing the thread? What is your duty as a moderator? Are people supposed to have to beg you?? And honestly, didn't you just admit in that very sentence that there was derailment happening—derailment that you were also part of? You were even going off-topic in that post itself, do you get that?? Just kidding, I'm sure you get it; maybe one day it'll finally click for you and for the others standing behind you.

Ninja, I was watching the thread in real-time. I wasn't checking my email reports at all. Believe me or don't, but I only looked through them today, and even then, just a quick glance. To me, the discussion about the flag at the protest wasn't even off-topic, and no one was deleted or penalized for it. Your post was removed because you were commenting on the moderation itself. There was no middle ground. It was either delete the post or issue a strike. Looking at your profile guidelines, I figured you weren't big on deleting posts. If I misinterpreted your stance, just say so, but maybe try being a little more direct next time.

Look, I told you, just post the PP if you want to. You can post both of yours, and I won't put a single one of mine up.

hollowwalker142 said:I already told you: "you're deleting again, and besides, you don't even know what you're doing." So, are you lagging again? You were lying a second ago, and now you're at it again—clearly, you aren't a real HNSovac, or am I the one lying now? I could easily write that just to troll the thread, but I won't.🙂
Regarding the PM, let's stick to the rules.
I'm down to publishing our exchange, how about you?

How was I supposed to take "you're deleting again, you don't even know the rest"? As a compliment? If you actually meant that you agree with the deletion and that I handled things correctly, then please accept my apology. I'll ask the admins to clear your warning, and I'll go ahead and delete the post again.
I don't have any logs to show because I haven't replied to you yet. Feel free to post your own messages if you want.