Thanks to you and others for fact checking my little monkeyshine. Obviously I'm chagrined at making so many misteaks,... And despite my chagriniosity rest assured I am pleased to have my facts corrected which I why I come here for learnings at the feets of basketball experts such as yourself and especially Marcus
Wit, Marcus, is the ability to say something clever. A know nothing, someone who knows nothing, has nothing clever to say. One cannot be both a know nothing and a wit. Next time take a deep breath and concentrate on one insult at a time. As for lashing out, shirley not: I'm chatting, as one does. You seem a bit het up though. As for my dumb mistakes, the stinkiest bait catches the dopiest fish. Here I was angling for a blowfish and found one.
Ohh, please, please, may I play?
It troubles me very little whether you come for the lessons I impart or some less tangible gain, Foad. Your contributions to conversation actually have their place in the cavalcade of debates here; despite your apparent belief that we all somehow are missing the synapse between ideas that only a man of your intelligence can perceive. And on topics, mind you, that in the grand scheme of things, matter so little to so few.
And, for what it's worth my friend, you're welcome. Because, here endeth lesson two. What I mentioned above is the modern-western understanding of "wit"; making connections between ideas, or the expression of ideas, that requires some superficial observance and therefore a presumed level of skill or inventiveness. It is therefore quite possible, to be witty, and although not a literal "know-nothing", very close to it. Wit is not a measure of knowledge in the aggregate in any way that I'm aware. But far be it for me to correct you on the use of a term, that you being so unequivocally sure of it's proper usage, you felt the apparent duty to deride another poster's employment of it.
And please save us the ex post facto excuses. Your statement to Marcus that in your subtle brilliance you've feigned initial ignorance in an attempt to make a broader point and win the day is very convenient whence you've been made to look a fool. The Great Tacticians and their rope-a-dope attacks: Napolean at the battle of Austerlitz, Cassius Clay in his defeat of Foreman,.. and Fun of Johnny Jungle on July 18th, 2012. Is that what we are to believe?
I think not...
Besides overrated DeWK, perennial choksters UNC, a Boeheimless Syracuse (my sources tell me he'll never coach a game in the ACC), Pitt (who knows how long Dixon stays), NC State, Maryland, Wake, Virginia, and Florida, what else do they have? A bunch of teams at the bottom of the conference who tend to lose more often than they win. Unlike the BE, where all the teams at the top tend to win more games than they lose - which is a huge difference not apparent to most casual fans. And anyway none of those teams can hold a candle to West Virginia, much less traditional basketball powerhouses like Central Florida, Boise State, and Navy. With a healthy Jim Calhoun safely at UConn for another 10 or 20 years and up and comers like the classy Mike Rice at Rutgers and Mick Cronin at UC the sky's the limit for the new conference.
In establishing the point that the ACC is superior, comparatively, to the Big East, why would someone reference a previously mentioned list of ACC teams (NC State, Maryland, Wake..) and claim sarcastically that such programs "can't hold a candle" to WVU, UCF, Boise, and Navy?
Is there an inherent irony in the comparison? Does mocking such a comparison make his argument stronger?
Or, is the author unawares that 3 of the 4 teams he mentioned will never dribble a ball in the Big East conference? (WVU is a member of the Big12 sir)
I have no perverse pleasure in pointing out the mistakes of others, if you took notice you would see my original comments were in agreement with your position, and the correction was a minor aside. You only draw further attention to your mistakes however when you claim to be above making such errors, and clearly you are not. Defensiveness doesn't suit you well Foad. So be a good boy and return to playing the part of the cocksure, magniloquent, schoolboy in the back row, who on occasion finds himself bored enough to proclaim innately truthful doctrine to his unsophisticated classmates. You were tolerable in that role, despite your obviously eager attempts to impress.