Uber for the poor part.....

[TheH2]

http://www2.tsn.ca/bardown/Story.aspx?S ... &id=581365

[awesome guy]

When you’re one of the greatest players in the world, fans just assume that you are either chauffeured around or you’re arriving in style wherever it is you’re going. So when reporters found out how Steph Curry gets to games, they were a little shocked to say the least.

Opps. Amazing how much being carless stings ya. You could get a moped or one of those new reverse trikes. They look cool and affordable.

[BigDave]

I wonder if he's a good tipper.

[RiverguyVT]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

[awesome guy]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

No kidding, what a miss.

[absolutvt03]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

[awesome guy]

Check this out H2. Ain't as cheap as I thought, but still cool. A lot cheaper than the H2 that was out of reach for you. You could pretend it's a batmobile. Da na nana nana dana nun.

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/slingshot

[RiverguyVT]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

[HokieFanDC]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

I think it all comes down to what you define as a miss. Did he miss that Curry was a special player? Yes. But, what signs were there, that he would be this good. Curry didn't receive any P5 scholarship offers, or invited walk-ons. Greenberg at least offered a walk-on to him.

But, in the context of VT basketball, I still think GBerg made a mistake. Despite Curry's size, he was an all-state HS player, and led his team to a lot of wins. VT was not a deep team in most years, so I don't think it would be a stretch to take on a project like Curry. And I do think that being Dell's son should have had some impact. I look at Nigel Munson, who was brought in with that class. He was a 3* with a short, and not impressive, offer list. Better offer list than Curry, yes. But, not terrific. And Munson was a whopping 6'1", 170 lbs.

[absolutvt03]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

How did you get that out of what I said? No, the Greenberg/Steph Curry stuff has been discussed so much that there's literally nothing left to say about it. Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore. At some point, regardless of what side you take, you need to move on. We're well past that point but some people continue to bring it up any time Steph Curry makes a 3.

[RiverguyVT]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

How did you get that out of what I said? No, the Greenberg/Steph Curry stuff has been discussed so much that there's literally nothing left to say about it. Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore. At some point, regardless of what side you take, you need to move on. We're well past that point but some people continue to bring it up any time Steph Curry makes a 3.

Well seeing that I was responding in a thread where Greenberg had already been brought up by the OP and you're making assumptions that I brought Greenberg up and am deserving of any downvotes, I remain not surprised.

[RiverguyVT]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

I think it all comes down to what you define as a miss. Did he miss that Curry was a special player? Yes. But, what signs were there, that he would be this good. Curry didn't receive any P5 scholarship offers, or invited walk-ons. Greenberg at least offered a walk-on to him.

But, in the context of VT basketball, I still think GBerg made a mistake. Despite Curry's size, he was an all-state HS player, and led his team to a lot of wins. VT was not a deep team in most years, so I don't think it would be a stretch to take on a project like Curry. And I do think that being Dell's son should have had some impact. I look at Nigel Munson, who was brought in with that class. He was a 3* with a short, and not impressive, offer list. Better offer list than Curry, yes. But, not terrific. And Munson was a whopping 6'1", 170 lbs.

That's my take too. It isn't like we were loaded with talent or great recruits. Kentucky, we aren't (nor were)

[133743Hokie]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

I think it all comes down to what you define as a miss. Did he miss that Curry was a special player? Yes. But, what signs were there, that he would be this good. Curry didn't receive any P5 scholarship offers, or invited walk-ons. Greenberg at least offered a walk-on to him.

But, in the context of VT basketball, I still think GBerg made a mistake. Despite Curry's size, he was an all-state HS player, and led his team to a lot of wins. VT was not a deep team in most years, so I don't think it would be a stretch to take on a project like Curry. And I do think that being Dell's son should have had some impact. I look at Nigel Munson, who was brought in with that class. He was a 3* with a short, and not impressive, offer list. Better offer list than Curry, yes. But, not terrific. And Munson was a whopping 6'1", 170 lbs.

That's my take too. It isn't like we were loaded with talent or great recruits. Kentucky, we aren't (nor were)

Davidson customized their system around him. He would have been an 8ppg cog at VT, or any other P5 program, and would have never evolved and developed as a college player like he did a Davidson.

[absolutvt03]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

How did you get that out of what I said? No, the Greenberg/Steph Curry stuff has been discussed so much that there's literally nothing left to say about it. Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore. At some point, regardless of what side you take, you need to move on. We're well past that point but some people continue to bring it up any time Steph Curry makes a 3.

Well seeing that I was responding in a thread where Greenberg had already been brought up by the OP and you're making assumptions that I brought Greenberg up and am deserving of any downvotes, I remain not surprised.

The only one making assumptions here is you in your previous post. I didn't say you brought Greenberg up. I said some people continue to bring up the whole Greenberg/Step Curry situation. There's nothing left to be said. Nothing you say is going to change anything and Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore.

And you're being... I'll say disingenuous... (as opposed to a liar) when you imply that the topic was about Greenberg. The topic was about Jim Weaver's legacy and mentioned Greenberg as a possible option. You were the first one to bring up Curry. You started the entire Steph Curry tangential "discussion". So my comment about "some people continue to bring it up" (it being the Greenberg/Curry situation) stands. After reading your entire part of the discussion, I'm even more convinced that the downvotes were warranted.

[absolutvt03]

Davidson customized their system around him. He would have been an 8ppg cog at VT, or any other P5 program, and would have never evolved and developed as a college player like he did a Davidson.

It's hard to say how it would have played out but that's certainly a possibility. Regardless of whether VT should have offered him or not, I do think things worked out best for Steph. He was able to go somewhere where he was "the guy" from Day 1. That most likely would not have been the case for him at any ACC or P5 school.

[RiverguyVT]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

How did you get that out of what I said? No, the Greenberg/Steph Curry stuff has been discussed so much that there's literally nothing left to say about it. Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore. At some point, regardless of what side you take, you need to move on. We're well past that point but some people continue to bring it up any time Steph Curry makes a 3.

Well seeing that I was responding in a thread where Greenberg had already been brought up by the OP and you're making assumptions that I brought Greenberg up and am deserving of any downvotes, I remain not surprised.

The only one making assumptions here is you in your previous post. I didn't say you brought Greenberg up. I said some people continue to bring up the whole Greenberg/Step Curry situation. There's nothing left to be said. Nothing you say is going to change anything and Greenberg isn't even our coach anymore.

And you're being... I'll say disingenuous... (as opposed to a liar) when you imply that the topic was about Greenberg. The topic was about Jim Weaver's legacy and mentioned Greenberg as a possible option. You were the first one to bring up Curry. You started the entire Steph Curry tangential "discussion". So my comment about "some people continue to bring it up" (it being the Greenberg/Curry situation) stands. After reading your entire part of the discussion, I'm even more convinced that the downvotes were warranted.

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

[absolutvt03]

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

No I said "Some people continue to bring it up". Unless Greenberg is an it, it's pretty clear I was referring to the Greenberg/Curry stuff which you were the first person in the topic to bring up. That's not semantics, that's reading comprehension. My favorite part is how you try to make it out to be a bad thing that I actually looked at the thread in question. Because it would have been much better if I had just made assumptions about something I hadn't read myself... And it wasn't much "trouble" at all. Took all of 30 seconds if that. And I hate to disappoint you (and once again dispel your incorrect assumptions) but I didn't give any votes in the topic. I rarely give votes (positive or negative) on TSL.

[awesome guy]

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

No I said "Some people continue to bring it up". Unless Greenberg is an it, it's pretty clear I was referring to the Greenberg/Curry stuff which you were the first person in the topic to bring up. That's not semantics, that's reading comprehension. My favorite part is how you try to make it out to be a bad thing that I actually looked at the thread in question. Because it would have been much better if I had just made assumptions about something I hadn't read myself... And it wasn't much "trouble" at all. Took all of 30 seconds if that. And I hate to disappoint you (and once again dispel your incorrect assumptions) but I didn't give any votes in the topic. I rarely give votes (positive or negative) on TSL.

Golly gee, another poster "not comprehending" your illogical posts. Must be everyone else that is the problem.

[RiverguyVT]

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

No I said "Some people continue to bring it up". Unless Greenberg is an it, it's pretty clear I was referring to the Greenberg/Curry stuff which you were the first person in the topic to bring up. That's not semantics, that's reading comprehension. My favorite part is how you try to make it out to be a bad thing that I actually looked at the thread in question. Because it would have been much better if I had just made assumptions about something I hadn't read myself... And it wasn't much "trouble" at all. Took all of 30 seconds if that. And I hate to disappoint you (and once again dispel your incorrect assumptions) but I didn't give any votes in the topic. I rarely give votes (positive or negative) on TSL.

I'm not going to enter yet another of your purse fights where you say something, then try to back out claiming the other poster has "reading comprehension issues" (your favorite line in almost every thread you participate in), all the while your newfound argument resting upon your claim of the other poster not understanding an inexact pronoun or an ambiguous object of the preposition.

[TheH2]

Check this out H2. Ain't as cheap as I thought, but still cool. A lot cheaper than the H2 that was out of reach for you. You could pretend it's a batmobile. Da na nana nana dana nun.

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/slingshot

You think my username has something to do with a car? I hate cars. I can't wait for the first self driving car - actually - I really just can't wait for a car that drives itself on the highway when stuck in traffic. That's the worst. My drive to Virginia Beach would be so much better if I could sit there and read while sitting in traffic.

[TheH2]

t/j. -I was down voted on TSL for saying Greenberg wasn't that great and that he screwed up royally missing on Steph Curry.

If it was a recent post then the downvote was deserved. That whole situation has been discussed into the ground. At this point you're not even beating a dead horse, you're just down to bone fragments and pieces of skin.

So. Greenberg was great, and didn't miss huge on Steph Curry? Why am I not surprised?

I think it all comes down to what you define as a miss. Did he miss that Curry was a special player? Yes. But, what signs were there, that he would be this good. Curry didn't receive any P5 scholarship offers, or invited walk-ons. Greenberg at least offered a walk-on to him.

But, in the context of VT basketball, I still think GBerg made a mistake. Despite Curry's size, he was an all-state HS player, and led his team to a lot of wins. VT was not a deep team in most years, so I don't think it would be a stretch to take on a project like Curry. And I do think that being Dell's son should have had some impact. I look at Nigel Munson, who was brought in with that class. He was a 3* with a short, and not impressive, offer list. Better offer list than Curry, yes. But, not terrific. And Munson was a whopping 6'1", 170 lbs.

If he went to VT he'd be a nobody like every other basketball player. He should buy Seth a house for doing him a favor.

[nolanvt]

I do wonder if Seth would have hindered Steph's development. I'm in agreement with TheH2 here is that it was probably a blessing in disguise for Steph.

[awesome guy]

Check this out H2. Ain't as cheap as I thought, but still cool. A lot cheaper than the H2 that was out of reach for you. You could pretend it's a batmobile. Da na nana nana dana nun.

http://www.polaris.com/en-us/slingshot

You think my username has something to do with a car? I hate cars. I can't wait for the first self driving car - actually - I really just can't wait for a car that drives itself on the highway when stuck in traffic. That's the worst. My drive to Virginia Beach would be so much better if I could sit there and read while sitting in traffic.

Uh huh. Don't let failure be permanent.

[absolutvt03]

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

No I said "Some people continue to bring it up". Unless Greenberg is an it, it's pretty clear I was referring to the Greenberg/Curry stuff which you were the first person in the topic to bring up. That's not semantics, that's reading comprehension. My favorite part is how you try to make it out to be a bad thing that I actually looked at the thread in question. Because it would have been much better if I had just made assumptions about something I hadn't read myself... And it wasn't much "trouble" at all. Took all of 30 seconds if that. And I hate to disappoint you (and once again dispel your incorrect assumptions) but I didn't give any votes in the topic. I rarely give votes (positive or negative) on TSL.

I'm not going to enter yet another of your purse fights where you say something, then try to back out claiming the other poster has "reading comprehension issues" (your favorite line in almost every thread you participate in), all the while your newfound argument resting upon your claim of the other poster not understanding an inexact pronoun or an ambiguous object of the preposition.

And by "not entering" you mean replying and continuing to argue something that you're clearly wrong about? There's no "newfound argument". My point was consistent across all my posts. There was nothing "inexact" or "ambiguous" about what I said. I was clearly talking about the Greenberg/Steph Curry debate and how it's beyond played out. Nothing I said indicated that I was talking about any post that happened to mention Seth Greenberg or that didn't involve the whole "Greenberg screwed up by not offering Curry" stuff. It's not my fault that you made an assumption and ran with it. I've reiterated multiple times now what I was talking about and your response is to attack me personally and try to tell me what I meant. I guess that's easier than just admitting you were wrong. Nevermind that this all started because you were butthurt over getting an imaginary thumbs down from a random person on the internet.

[RiverguyVT]

Good grief. Could you be a bigger hemeroid if you tried?
Yes, you indirectly said I brought Greenberg up, and now true to form try to back out on semantics. Aaaaagain.

Next, you accuse me of being a disengenuous liar (eff you!), when in fact, as I said, Greenberg had already been brought up. No. Your point doesn't stand.

While I'm not going to the trouble that you did by looking that old thread up on TSL, I am sure I can now thank you for additional down votes given a week after the fact. Thanks.

No I said "Some people continue to bring it up". Unless Greenberg is an it, it's pretty clear I was referring to the Greenberg/Curry stuff which you were the first person in the topic to bring up. That's not semantics, that's reading comprehension. My favorite part is how you try to make it out to be a bad thing that I actually looked at the thread in question. Because it would have been much better if I had just made assumptions about something I hadn't read myself... And it wasn't much "trouble" at all. Took all of 30 seconds if that. And I hate to disappoint you (and once again dispel your incorrect assumptions) but I didn't give any votes in the topic. I rarely give votes (positive or negative) on TSL.

I'm not going to enter yet another of your purse fights where you say something, then try to back out claiming the other poster has "reading comprehension issues" (your favorite line in almost every thread you participate in), all the while your newfound argument resting upon your claim of the other poster not understanding an inexact pronoun or an ambiguous object of the preposition.

And by "not entering" you mean replying and continuing to argue something that you're clearly wrong about? There's no "newfound argument". My point was consistent across all my posts. There was nothing "inexact" or "ambiguous" about what I said. I was clearly talking about the Greenberg/Steph Curry debate and how it's beyond played out. Nothing I said indicated that I was talking about any post that happened to mention Seth Greenberg or that didn't involve the whole "Greenberg screwed up by not offering Curry" stuff. It's not my fault that you made an assumption and ran with it. I've reiterated multiple times now what I was talking about and your response is to attack me personally and try to tell me what I meant. I guess that's easier than just admitting you were wrong. Nevermind that this all started because you were butthurt over getting an imaginary thumbs down from a random person on the internet.

Derp derp derp.
No, I'm not clearly wrong.
Yes, there's a newfound argument
No, you've not been consistent
Yes you made assumptions.

Yes, you're a pain in the arse because you like to pointlessly argue and hang your arguments on saying the other guy has reading comprehension issues, and then get into a grammar pillow fight

Eff off hemeroid.