Chicago Trib: Blazers a "lot less formidable" without Bayless and Webster

[Denny Crane]

My take is it was a quick blurb and intended to let Chicago fans know they're not going to see Bayless or Webster in the game.

 

[andalusian]

My take is it was a quick blurb and intended to let Chicago fans know they're not going to see Bayless or Webster in the game.

Clearly they saved the front-page location to a discussion of the rare opportunity to see Wes Mathews and Armon Johnson live.

 

[Ed O]

I can't believe I'm typing this, but...I agree with Shooter. To me, it seems clear that "it looks" was meant as "my observation is that" rather than "it appears, despite not really being the case."

The "Still, don't sleep on them" very much cements that interpretation (and any reading of communication is, at some level, an interpretation) for me. "Still, don't sleep on them" denotes that the previous comments were a possible reason to sleep on them.

So he's saying, "I think the team is worse, but they're not worse"?

I think "Still, don't sleep on them" indicates he's saying, "They might look worse, but they're not."

Of course, as you said, it's not very important AND... he evidently thinks the Bulls had a gimme in OKC. So... yeah.

Ed O.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Is it cloudy and rainy in Portland today or something?

Very. Windy too. I left my pop-up canopy up in front of my house (part of my halloween decorations), and it got blown over and collapsed.

Sunny and warm here. Too nice to get in a pissing match over implied meanings from some blogger in Chicago.

I had nothing better to do.

 

[Minstrel]

So he's saying, "I think the team is worse, but they're not worse"?

He didn't say anything about them not being worse, IMO, just not to sleep on them. To me, his blurb was "Even though they may be worse, they're still a threat. The Bulls shouldn't look past them."

 

[Shooter]

So he's saying, "I think the team is worse, but they're not worse"?

I think "Still, don't sleep on them" indicates he's saying, "They might look worse, but they're not."

Holy crap, Ed, you're completely missing a very simple point. The guy is just saying that the team is worse, but it's still dangerous enough to take seriously. For God's sake.

 

[Ed O]

Holy crap, Ed, you're completely missing a very simple point. The guy is just saying that the team is worse, but it's still dangerous enough to take seriously. For God's sake.

I disagree. I don't think he's saying they're worse. I think he's saying that it might seem they're worse.

I'm not alone in assessing it that way.

Ed O.

 

[bodyman5001]

I disagree. I don't think he's saying they're worse. I think he's saying that it might seem they're worse.

I'm not alone in assessing it that way.

Ed O.

Not alone, just wrong.

 

[Denny Crane]

You'd be ahead at halftime if you had Bayless and Webster.

 

[Ed O]

Not alone, just wrong.

Based on what? Assuming the blogger wrote what he meant, then he meant that the team LOOKED worse. Not that they WERE worse.

Ed O.

 

[julius]

maybe this blogger was on to something.

 

[MIXUM]

how can anyone argue this guy is wrong?

did you watch our bench tonight?

 

[Minstrel]

Based on what? Assuming the blogger wrote what he meant, then he meant that the team LOOKED worse. Not that they WERE worse.

You're acting like the word "look" is always, or even usually, meant in opposition to reality. That's not true at all. If I say that the Miami Heat look like a championship contender, that doesn't imply "but really aren't a championship contender."

"Look" can either mean "appear, in opposition to the actuality" or "is, to my observation." I would say that the second is at least as common a usage and probably much more so.