KHTK

B

BeerNerd916

Bench
#661
#661
VF21 said:
Actually, I took your comment the same way Slim did. In my mind, you excused Grant for his rude boorish behavior because of his "shtick." Slim thinks it's fascinating. I think it's puerile, which is primarily why I haven't listened to Grant's show except for very rare occasions in years.

Grant gets away with crap nobody else would get away with. If I wanted to dig up the old refrain, I would again bring up that it's pretty hypocritical of him to act all Jim Romish on his radio show and then expect to be respected when he dons his other cap.
Click to expand...
I figured somebody might which is why I CAP'D it. To put emphasis on it as opposed to acting like I was shrugging about it.

I in no way excuse that about him. But it is to be expected considering the history. I'm not surprised by it, as shouldn't anyone else be. Doesn't mean I accept it or even condone it.
 
Mr. S£im Citrus

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#662
#662
Russell Pimphustler said:
Well that would be making an assumption...
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. It's a conclusion I came to, based on the words you typed. No assumption required. Now, the conclusion may have been wrong (and I still don't think I was), but it didn't require me to assume anything; it was a reasonable interpretation of what you actually said.
 
Kingz19

Kingz19

Hall of Famer
#663
#663
Listened to the segment in question.

Grant told him to cancel his package but shilled at the same time. He framed it as a “your loss” type of thing. He then went onto give his signature couple years down the road guarantee.

“STEVE. STEVE. STEVE. Go ahead. Cancel them! Okay? Then you’ll see in a couple years! When it’s all going good! Season tickets will be impossible to get. Okay? Man..”

I remember he guaranteed the Kings would be a playoff team by the time they
moved into Golden 1.
 
B

BeerNerd916

Bench
#664
#664
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
No it wouldn't. It's a conclusion I came to, based on the words you typed. No assumption required. Now, the conclusion may have been wrong (and I still don't think I was), but it didn't require me to assume anything; it was a reasonable interpretation of what you actually said.
Click to expand...
You drew a conclusion based off an assumption. Again. Nice try tho.

Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

So you assumed that because I pointed out that Grants behavior of yelling over and berating callers he doesn't agree with that get belligerent with him as his "shtick" means that I am excusing his behavior. That is an ASSUMPTION on your part. That is NOT a CONCLUSION. You did not properly test a hypothesis. If you had, you would have attempted to produce EVIDENCE through QUESTIONING me. You did not follow a logical scientific process, therefore you ASSUMED. Get it now?
 
Last edited:
Mr. S£im Citrus

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#665
#665
That's not what an assumption is. An assumption would have been if your post had stopped at,

Yeah, I totally get that point. I think Grant just got pissed off and let dude have it.
Click to expand...
... And I had come to a conclusion based on that that you were excusing his behavior. But it didn't. And without a repudiation after the part where you typed "But THAT'S his shtick lol." (which you did not have), it was a reasonable interpretation of the words that you actually used, that did not require me to assume anything. The "EVIDENCE" that was lacking in your post was evidence of censure. An assumption would have been that you aren't okay with it.

But that's neither here nor there because, originally, I wasn't actually talking about you in the first place. You've been posting here long enough that you ought to know that I don't play coy like that: if I had been talking about you, I would have '@'-ed you, so to speak. I excerpted three words from your post, in an attempt to use them as a jumping-off point to a larger conversation. You asked me who was excusing his behavior; I did not actually answer your question, but instead, explained why I believe that that particular string of words could be reasonably interpreted as excusing the behavior. You're the one who concluded from that explanation that I was talking about you, so if anyone is making assumptions here, it's @Russell Pimphustler.
 
Telemachus

Telemachus

Starter
#669
#669
upinsmoke said:
No CM Dave on this morning and Ross says he won't be doing anymore Locked on Kings podcasts. Is something up?
Click to expand...
Ross said that tommorrow is his final episode of Locked on Kings. He will be doing it with 2 other guys who are taking over. He said the reasoning is that he is just too busy at the moment.

Btw, Locked on Kings has no affiliation with KHTK.
 
upinsmoke

upinsmoke

All-Star
#670
#670
fansinceday1 said:
Its about that time where the brainiacs who run KHTK blow up all the line-ups and shuffle them around again, now that we have all got use to them.
Click to expand...
They will not be forgiven until they bring back ross and the gang and buy them each high end European luxury cars. In all seriousness thou what a crap management team they have over there. Knifes in everyone's backs.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#678
#678
Kingz19 said:
Amazing that Boogie has been gone for over a year but we’re still treated to full segments of Grant Napear complaining about him
Click to expand...
Whatever happened between them behind the scenes left a scar on Grant that will apparently never heal. I thought his fixation with C-Webb was bad, but it's nothing compared to how much space Boogie owns in his brain.
 
Iced Espresso

Iced Espresso

Starter
#679
#679
Dave, you had Amick on this morning which I patiently waited for to hear his analysis on Yogi and Bjelica. You didn't even ask him anything.

Was hoping to hear his thoughts on the players, transactions, and how the rest of the NBA front offices may have viewed the "poaching".

Come on man.
 
C

carmichaeldave

Bench
#680
#680
Iced Espresso said:
Dave, you had Amick on this morning which I patiently waited for to hear his analysis on Yogi and Bjelica. You didn't even ask him anything.

Was hoping to hear his thoughts on the players, transactions, and how the rest of the NBA front offices may have viewed the "poaching".

Come on man.
Click to expand...

Sam is coming on twice this week. I’m pretty sure he’s not going to have in depth analysis to those questions, being that they’re relatively minor moves on a national scale (which is what he covers). That being said, we were talking about the demise of the local papers, and he being a Bee alum could provide insight from both a national and local scale. It’s July.

When he comes on Thursday, I’ll ask him the Kings questions, rest assured. And Bobby Jackson will be on tomorrow at 8:30
 
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#681
#681
carmichaeldave said:
Sam is coming on twice this week. I’m pretty sure he’s not going to have in depth analysis to those questions, being that they’re relatively minor moves on a national scale (which is what he covers). That being said, we were talking about the demise of the local papers, and he being a Bee alum could provide insight from both a national and local scale. It’s July.

When he comes on Thursday, I’ll ask him the Kings questions, rest assured. And Bobby Jackson will be on tomorrow at 8:30
Click to expand...
Dave the demise of the paper is due to the papers unwillingness to adapt. The paper has always been a platform for news but a static one. The web is also a platform for news but a dynamic one. Papers have never adapted to make their platform be a dynamic model but have instead forced their static model on the web.

For example, I would happily subscribe to a web paper that delivered Kings basketball, Fresno State Sports, Washington State News, Dan Walters, Joe Davidson, Sacramento News.... all these are McClatchy Properties. Today to get this collection I have to buy 3 papers that has lots of information I don’t care about. When the papers figure out how to chunk their content and assemble and deliver the chunks people want their subscription levels will be fine. As long as they stupidly force a static format they will continue to suffer. If they were really smart they would create a licensing model with the Auburn Journal so I could add local chunks.
 
VF21

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#682
#682
sactowndog said:
Dave the demise of the paper is due to the papers unwillingness to adapt. The paper has always been a platform for news but a static one. The web is also a platform for news but a dynamic one. Papers have never adapted to make their platform be a dynamic model but have instead forced their static model on the web.

For example, I would happily subscribe to a web paper that delivered Kings basketball, Fresno State Sports, Washington State News, Dan Walters, Joe Davidson, Sacramento News.... all these are McClatchy Properties. Today to get this collection I have to buy 3 papers that has lots of information I don’t care about. When the papers figure out how to chunk their content and assemble and deliver the chunks people want their subscription levels will be fine. As long as they stupidly force a static format they will continue to suffer. If they were really smart they would create a licensing model with the Auburn Journal so I could add local chunks.
Click to expand...
I believe he's talking about the demise of print media. At some point, the cost of producing an actual print newspaper exceeds any possible profits, especially since classified advertising has almost completely disappeared.
 
sactowndog

sactowndog

All-Star
#683
#683
VF21 said:
I believe he's talking about the demise of print media. At some point, the cost of producing an actual print newspaper exceeds any possible profits, especially since classified advertising has almost completely disappeared.
Click to expand...
No I actually heard the conversation with Marcos waiting for the opinion on Beli. The talked about needing to hit a pay subscription rate online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.