First, I have no animosity towards you. It can be frustrating at times that people don't understand what seems so obvious to me. I also don't believe I attacked you personally in anyway. I just want to make that clear.
Now, your post provides several examples of what I am talking about. Let's break it down:
Markezi said:
Peja: Apparently wants to be traded because he's upset with Webber, but is neither publicly nor privately campaigning.
Chris: Apparently supports Peja to be traded, has publicly and privately questioned his play, and is privately campaigning for Peja's departure.
These are beliefs based on what we've heard, they are not facts. You used the word "apparently", which helps, although I don't think those assertions are apparent at all. At least here you attempted to make it clear that these are your inferences based on what you've read, rather than actual facts that were reported and confirmed.
Markezi said:
Bricklayer: Webber has never privately campaigned for Peja to leave.
That is a twist of what Bricklayer said, and it leaves out important parts of his post. "As far as is known" Webber has never privately campaigned for Peja to leave. You might take Chad Ford's article as evidence, but many of us don't, and Bricklayer obviously didn't when he posted, so leaving that part out is a slight mischaracterization.
Markezi said:
Seems pretty cut and dry - where did your analysis of my take go wrong?
The real question is did you really understand my point? Others obviously did, as several people have explained it here before me. My point was that you put it out there as a confirmed fact that "Webber, however, has stated that he supports Peja leaving."
If somebody read your post, they would not be able to tell if that comment was based on an actual public comment made by Webber, or by a rumor printed by a columnist known to have been wrong with that type of information before. There is a big difference. Because your post made it sound like the first one, you were misrepresenting facts - which is why you get "attacked".
Markezi said:
Also, opinions are not "FACTS" as you state, they are, suprisingly perhaps, opinions.
When did I state that opinions are FACTS? Either you misunderstood me, or you misrepresented what I said.
Markezi said:
Maybe instead of misdirecting your animosity towards me for pointing out a very interesting component of these two ESPN articles, your time would better spent actually discussing the probability (as you stated)
Again, I said it was possible, not probable - whether you do this on purpose or not is irrelevent, it happens a lot in these discussions, and I believe that is the reason several members of this forum think that there is an anti-anti-Webber bias.
Markezi said:
that it IS true, and the effect that has on the Kings. That's all I was trying to do. Escalating it to a personal attack on my intentions (as if I had any over and above posting my opinions just like everyone else) is unecessary.
Maybe you should put it in your signature that every comment you make is just what you are inferring based on what you've read. That way we won't misunderstand you anymore, and we won't call you on the things you claim that we don't think are true. This is not a personal attack, this is an attempt at an explanation. I don't think you are a bad person and I have no animosity towards you or your board personality. I write all this with a smile on my face. I do wish that you or others could understand the point I am trying to make. I just don't like the misunderstanding.