Shakalu M.D.
Its Happening!!!!
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Messages
- 11,526
- Reaction score
- 10,880
- Points
- 123
Well this has been touched upon already, but as I can't seem to keep my mouth shut I'll weigh in on the subject.
W&G's thread touched on LeBron in 2010 it is true, however that wasn't the main theme of the post. His entire post was about one of the most powerful men in basketball. He did mention that all of this LeBron to NY was probably due to the influence of Wesley, however it mostly touched on the subject of this man's influence in the athletic world. Most of the article related to how this man got his power, how he has contacts all over the NBA, and how he influences athletic talent, especially when they are still young.
Heath's thread, "the strategy", was COMPLETELY about LBJ in 2010. The entire strategy that Heath was discussing was a strategy to keep LeBron from leaving. While it was well thought out, I ended up reading it because of the misleading title and the fact that it wasn't in the 2010 thread. I read the article because it was well thought out, however I was still annoyed that I was led into another 2010 thread by an ambiguous title.
That is why the 2010 thread exists, to keep members like me who are incredibly annoyed by the 2010 fiasco from going insane.
W&G's thread touched on LeBron in 2010 it is true, however that wasn't the main theme of the post. His entire post was about one of the most powerful men in basketball. He did mention that all of this LeBron to NY was probably due to the influence of Wesley, however it mostly touched on the subject of this man's influence in the athletic world. Most of the article related to how this man got his power, how he has contacts all over the NBA, and how he influences athletic talent, especially when they are still young.
Heath's thread, "the strategy", was COMPLETELY about LBJ in 2010. The entire strategy that Heath was discussing was a strategy to keep LeBron from leaving. While it was well thought out, I ended up reading it because of the misleading title and the fact that it wasn't in the 2010 thread. I read the article because it was well thought out, however I was still annoyed that I was led into another 2010 thread by an ambiguous title.
That is why the 2010 thread exists, to keep members like me who are incredibly annoyed by the 2010 fiasco from going insane.