Sounds like a personal question....
So I just got a letter from the IRS telling me I didn't file my claim. Several phone calls, a beer, and a stress headache later, I find out they sent the letter in error. I'd be mad at all the stress their mistake caused me if it weren't for the fact that it was all a mistake made me so relieved. They really covered their bases there.
Spurs may be the least dynastic of the dynasties (60s Celts, 87-98 Bulls, Showtime Lakers), but accepting them as a dynasty, they need to be included in a debate about the most dominant, especially considering league strength (which probably best supports the Bulls) and regular season dominance. But I can also understand the argument that they aren't a dynasty, as there isn't a clear core. You have Pop and TD there for all championships, and two others that were there for the other four.
On the subject of dynasties: I would define a dynasty as a sustained high level of play lasting distinctly longer than the average success/failure cycle for comparable teams in which several championships are earned. This certainly puts the Spurs on the level of a dynasty, however certainly not at the meteoric levels of success of some others. On the other hand, what they have been able to accomplish is in some ways more remarkable. Considering how long their core players have been able to sustain success it seems to me somewhat more rare than, say, 4 championships in 6 years or so. Consider it something like the NE Patriots.
So true. Especially since I like anthropologists more than engineers. No hate.