PDA

View Full Version : Today's official story from O'Brien is that Jamaal was



Peck
01-18-2008, 05:21 AM
not suspended, but de-activated.:rolleyes:

When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

So I understood the injury story.

However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

Oh well here is todays article

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/SPORTS04/801180457/1088/SPORTS04
Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said Thursday his version of Jamaal Tinsley's absence from Wednesday's game "is the story I'm sticking with."


O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
"As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
"Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
"I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.

indygeezer
01-18-2008, 06:18 AM
not suspended, but de-activated.:rolleyes:

When asked why he wasn't at the game it's because Jim told him he didn't have to come.

At first this was just a minor blip to me about covering up Jamaals abscense, but now it's just getting sad.

Believe me, I understand that the team would like to avoid any negative headlines about any of our players least of all Jamaal.

So I understood the injury story.

However once you've been called on it, the worst thing you can do (btw it is what O'Brien is doing) is continue to lie about it but change your story all at the same time.

Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.

The best thing he could have done and should have done from here on out is "no comment". Yes, guilt buy default but then you avoid the old ancient proverb of keeping silent and making everyone thing you are a fool vs. opening your mouth and proving it.

Believe me, my tolerance for O'Brien is at rock bottom right now because I am still hopping mad at that Pheonix game.

Oh well here is todays article

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/SPORTS04/801180457/1088/SPORTS04
Indiana Pacers coach Jim O'Brien said Thursday his version of Jamaal Tinsley's absence from Wednesday's game "is the story I'm sticking with."


O'Brien said before and after Wednesday's win over Golden State that Tinsley was inactive because of an injured left knee.
Several people with knowledge of the situation, however, said Tinsley was "suspended" and "disciplined" after an incident during the team's film session the previous day.
Thursday, O'Brien said he "deactivated" Tinsley.
"As an NBA coach I have the ability and the right to deactivate any player I want," O'Brien said after practice Thursday. "I deactivated Jamaal and Ike (Diogu)."
Diogu was at the game; Tinsley was not.
Tinsley practiced Thursday and appeared to move well during the team's light workout. Afterward, he declined an interview request through a team spokesman.
Most players this season, including Tinsley, have attended games and practices when injured.
"Not if I tell him he doesn't have to show up for the game," O'Brien said, when asked why Tinsley wasn't there. "It's not the first time this year a player was deactivated that wasn't on the bench or here. That's totally up to the head coach. . . . What I told you (Wednesday) is the story I'm sticking with."
Tinsley has been dealing with several injuries the past few weeks but is expected to play Saturday against Sacramento.
"I intend to have him activated next game," O'Brien said.


"That's my story and I'm sticking to it" may be a cute Country music cliche but it is generally accepted to mean "I'm lying but I'll go to my grave with the lie". It really really sounds disengenuous.

But then, when is the last time a CEO of a major company ever come out and spoke the truth....Our employees are our most important asset..being among the most prevalent. I doubt if "the truth" is ever really told to the public about much of anything. Because "You can't handle the truth" is widely believed.

Putnam
01-18-2008, 07:58 AM
What's the big scandal, Peck?

An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.

Unclebuck
01-18-2008, 08:04 AM
Suspension - not paid for the game

Inactive - paid

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

RamBo_Lamar
01-18-2008, 08:27 AM
What's the big scandal, Peck?

An NBA coach does have the discretion to tell players where to be during the game. He can tell Foster to stand under the basket, can't he? And he can tell Tinsley to stay the hell home. It doesn't take any official act of suspension to put a player on the bench, nor does it require any official act to say, "Take a day off and rest your knee. While you're doing that, think about your future with this team and in this league."

I contend that O'Brien has not lied at all. There IS a suspension process, and the Pacers did not employ it with respect to Tinsley. He was not suspended.

As far as what actually happened during the film session, we still don't know and that is either O'Brien saying "No Comment" (Which you say he should have done.) or else the reporters failing to follow-up on the real story.

This incident cannot be rightly evaluated until we see what happens next. If Tinsley shapes up, then O'Brien did the right thing. If Tinsley continues to screw around and the Pacers bench him, fine him, suspend him or trade him with the next incident, then O'Brien did the right thing this time. But if things continue to be screwy and inconsistent and management never does take hold of the problem, then you will have been right about this and O'Brien (and TPTB) will deserve your criticism.


I agree for the most part with this.

This could have well been a 1 game suspension "in spirit" while not being
an official suspension. Depending on what precipitated it, it might just
have been the most diplomatic way of handling the situation without being
too heavy handed which may cause lingering ill feelings.

We won the game that night, so right decisions appear to have been made.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Phildog
01-18-2008, 08:47 AM
Yes. Take the coaches word at face value and quit speculating on this. OBie answered the question and I'm sure he had his reasons. Jack loves to stir up trouble in Indiana, and he succeeded without even being on our team!

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 08:57 AM
Whats the old saying, "Don't get to high over a win, and don't get to low over a loss."

I would say that proverb goes double for what you hear from the media nowdays. "Don't get to high over a good story, and don't get to low over a bad story." Especially a bad story, because news outlets always accentuate the negative.

I agree with what Geezer said about, 'That's my story and I'm sticking to it.' That's just a bad way to state your case.


This is said to have all come about over an 'incident during a film session.' We don't know exactly what happened, or what was said.

Even if O'B told Tins he was suspended in front of the whole team, (and we don't know that he did) he has the power to change a suspension to instead putting a player on the inactive list. If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.

Mostly I blame Mike Well's and his gossip type reporting. He doesn't do his job like newsmen used to do and get the facts before reporting, he just writes hearsay and enough to cause controversy.

BillS
01-18-2008, 09:09 AM
Made Inactive for disciplinary as well as health reasons could easily devolve to Suspended in casual conversation with a bud (sic).

If JOB did what UB says, it would feel like a suspension and JT would whine about it as a suspension.

Therefore, in an odd way, both are right - one is using the word casually while the other is sticking to the legal/contract definition.

After all, if it was a deactivation with a "don't show up" clause, JOB and the Pacers would get in big trouble with the PA for calling it a suspension since they didn't follow the process. JT and SJ and others aren't under the same constraints.

Note: it doesn't change my feelings. If there was an incident at a film session I still feel Tinsley's an idiot for biting the hand that feeds him. Sorry, he isn't AI.

avoidingtheclowns
01-18-2008, 09:29 AM
Suspension - not paid for the game

Inactive - paid

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.

completely agree.

indygeezer
01-18-2008, 09:44 AM
Suspension/vacation/day off whatever, it really isn't pertinent to what the fans are being told. It's the lack of forthright honesty that I'm whining about.

Putnam
01-18-2008, 09:47 AM
Methinks that Peck doth protest too much.


Not to mention insulting a player from another team. Listen to his radio show and listen to what he says about Stephen Jackson. Now I realize that bashing Jackson will probably earn him some points around here but if this is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was "suspended" then he just basically called Stephen Jackson a liar when he was the one lying.


OK, I did listen to the show. And I think you are out of line on this.

What O'Brien says is, "Consider the source." That is entirely appropriate. No opposing player has the right to speak for the Pacers. It is a non-issue that it happened to be Jackson, and O'Brien said nothing particular or specific about it being Jackson.

O'Brien did not call Jackson a liar, or even imply that he is a liar. All O'Brien said was "Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

Anybody got a problem with that?

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 10:20 AM
Suspension/vacation/day off whatever, it really isn't pertinent to what the fans are being told. It's the lack of forthright honesty that I'm whining about.

How do you know your not getting forthright honesty? Why come down on one side without proper evidence?

With me it's a case of, "he said, she said." I don't know who's telling the truth or who's lying, or if it's just a matter of semantics like Bills said.

Either way, ask yourself who's the bad guys in this whole thing? O'B who had a confrontation with Tins and he wants to keep it quiet. Or those who want to drag it out in the open? (Jackson and Wells)

indygeezer
01-18-2008, 10:34 AM
How do you know your not getting forthright honesty? Why come down on one side without proper evidence?

With me it's a case of, "he said, she said." I don't know who's telling the truth or who's lying, or if it's just a matter of semantics like Bills said.

Either way, ask yourself who's the bad guys in this whole thing? O'B who had a confrontation with Tins and he wants to keep it quiet. Or those who want to drag it out in the open? (Jackson and Wells)


How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.

Jose Slaughter
01-18-2008, 10:38 AM
Its just more crap that Pacer fans have to deal with that I'm far past my limit of putting up with.

MagicRat
01-18-2008, 10:41 AM
How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.

I don't appreciate the fracturiousness of your comment.......:tsk:

indygeezer
01-18-2008, 10:44 AM
I don't appreciate the fracturiousness of your comment.......:tsk:

Wow.......a WORD OF THE DAY Candidate

fracturiousness......a measure of the ability to fracture.

BobbyMac
01-18-2008, 10:53 AM
Suspension - not paid for the game

Inactive - paid

The fact that he was asked not to attend the game - that speaks volumes to me. That begs the question - why did Jim tell JT not to attend the game. It isn't like it is a road game. Logic would tell us, he probably had some type of disagreement with JT, and thought it was better that he stay away for a day, clear his head.

Peck, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If he got paid for the game then he was not suspended, although I siuppose a team could and has suspended a player with pay - I think they did that with Artest in '03.

I don't understand why a number of you are using this against O'Brien. Regardless of anything, he disciplined Tinsley - isn't that what everyone has wanted for years. And now that we have a coach willing to discipline a player, everyone is complaining about the exact laguage used. I really don't understand it. Look at the big picture.


Well said..the team did the right thing

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 10:58 AM
How about Tinsley....afterall if he hadn't acted up, this would be a non-issue.

That's true, but it is Tinsley we're talking about!

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------
Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

<!-- displayed mode -->http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

indygeezer
01-18-2008, 11:07 AM
That's true, but it is Tinsley we're talking about!

I've had the thought several years in a row now that he does something every year at this time to hurt his trade value so the Pacers can't trade him. Then again I think . . . well I was reading Chad Ford's chat this morning on ESPN, and the following was posted.

----------
Kenny (Indiana): What is Larry Bird going to do in Indiana? or do we still have to live w/ Dunleavy and Granger in the starting lineup together in which 1 will be playing out of positin at SG.

<!-- displayed mode -->http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Chad Ford: They're in limbo. They're a solid team, but aren't going to scare anyone on any given night. They're defense has been awful. To me the Pacers have always hinged on Tinsley. When he's healthy and in the zone, they are tough to beat. When he's injured (which seems to be all the time) or out of the zone (which also happens on a regular basis) they tank. I've felt for the longest time ... he's the guy you've got to replace. You can't have such inconsistency from your floor leader.
----------

I agree! I don't think we will go anywhere until we get rid of Tins. I think he and his life style are a real problem. It took the Blazers years to shed the JailBlazers nickname, because there was always some rotten apples left.

Finally they decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!


We agree on something!

Putnam
01-18-2008, 11:18 AM
Portland . . . decided to just go after good character guys and look what's happened! That's what I want the Pacers to do!

I'm glad to see this statement. Now, Will, the question is who are the good character guys, and who needs to go. I'm just trying to encourage your point. I agree that this needs to happen. And it means putting character over talent and turning a deaf ear to the critics.

Who, then, are the people who need to go because of character.

Tinsley? Absolutely. He's exhibit A
Harrison? Bye, bye, Hulk.


Now it gets tougher.

Daniels? He's facing charges after 8 Seconds (Is that reason enough?)
O'Neal? He was charged for the brawl (Is that reason enough?)
Williams? Driving charges and drugs last Fall (Is that reason enough?)

Any more?

Rush? Bernie Bickerstaff dumped him, but I think that issue is in the past.
Foster? Uttered "That's good-*** defense" during a game. think of the children. (I'm kidding.)

Raskolnikov
01-18-2008, 11:40 AM
Foster? Uttered "That's good-*** defense" during a game.
That's just good-*** character.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2008, 11:41 AM
Who do you think told Jackson? Someone that knows more than anyone on here, that's for sure, and probably Tinsley.

Obviously they had some issue at the film session and that turned into a pretty standard "suspended with pay" situation. I agree with Peck that JOB tried to downplay it just like Rick used to do, if anything it's for the player's benefit (their rep/image).

It came out and JOB/TPTB are trying to spin out of an awkward situation.

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

You guys act like he got up the next day, read the paper and said "I'm not going to let them get away with this, my boy was unfairly suspended." That's not what happened. He answered a question as though the suspension was already a known issue.


If that's the case then O'B isn't lying about the result.
Technically, but come on, we're adults here. And regardless there is "asked to stay home" due to injury and due to disagreement. He's still denying the disagreement and if that's true then he is lying/spinning.

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 11:44 AM
Any more?


I read in the paper that Granger wears purple suits. It can't be good for a Pacer to be looked at by children as a big grape.

(Not that's there's anything wrong with that)

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 11:50 AM
And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.



Online sites were already saying Tins was out because of his knee. If I knew it hours before the game, so did Jackson.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2008, 11:54 AM
"Consider the source." All that implies is that Jackson is not a reliable or authoritative source for information about the Pacers.

But again were not kids, we all know that is a common phrase with a definite implication behind it. It's not as simple as "they don't know our info", it carries the weight of the person being undependable due to character issues.

You use it to attack the person bringing the information to light as a means of defense for yourself.

"Jose Conseco said you did steriods with him McGwire."
"Yeah, but consider the source."

That doesn't mean "how would he know", that means "he's the type to make crap up for reasons of attention/stirring trouble".

And JOB didn't even coach Jackson, so consider HIS source on Jackson as a person.

They are throwing Jack under the bus because they know you guys will bite on it due to the outrageous dislike of him. But the story that came out cited MULTIPLE sources, not just Jackson, and again Jack didn't present it in a stirring the pot forum. Tinsley wasn't there, he mentioned it and the reason he thought everyone knew at that point. Why wouldn't they know if it was presented to him as common knowledge? You assume he spoke with someone that knew, maybe Tins, and that discussion probably was more like "he told him/me to sit out a game", "he/I got suspended for tonight, it was BS", etc without some follow-up of "but the official story is that he's/I'm just injured so keep it cool tonight if anyone asks".

It's just common sense.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2008, 11:57 AM
Online sites were already saying Tins was out because of his knee. If I knew it hours before the game, so did Jackson.
See I disagree with this because he isn't living the schedule we are. Is Jack surfing the net for NBA news 3 hours before a game? I'm not saying he couldn't be, but at some point aren't you eating, getting ready for the game, etc. It's not like any of these players are just surfing the net right up until game time.

Sure Agent Zero goes to online poker at halftime, but everyone thinks that's nuts. And I'm not saying he couldn't find out, I'm saying that it's hardly obvious that he did.


How Jackson presented it was off the cuff and casual. Maybe he was sticking up for Tinsley, but if that's the case then considering the source it makes what he said effectively the truth, barring spins on technicality.

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 12:00 PM
It's just common sense.


It's also common sense that Jackson would pile on the Pacers if he got the chance.

And I'm not piling on. I think the Pacers made mistakes in trading Jackson and Artest the way they did. I like both guys.

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 12:06 PM
See I disagree with this because he isn't living the schedule we are. Is Jack surfing the net for NBA news 3 hours before a game? I'm not saying he couldn't be, but at some point aren't you eating, getting ready for the game, etc. It's not like any of these players are just surfing the net right up until game time.

Sure Agent Zero goes to online poker at halftime, but everyone thinks that's nuts. And I'm not saying he couldn't find out, I'm saying that it's hardly obvious that he did.


How Jackson presented it was off the cuff and casual. Maybe he was sticking up for Tinsley, but if that's the case then considering the source it makes what he said effectively the truth, barring spins on technicality.

I didn't make my point clear. If online sites knew Tins was out, then the Warriors knew he was out. Thus Jack as a member of the Warriors would know he was out, and why.

I still think everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, and I don't hold with lying. (as the Pacers have been accused of doing)

JayRedd
01-18-2008, 01:10 PM
I think someone should write a dissertation comparing and contrasting the definitions of suspension versus deactivation, and how these distinctions are interpretted by the common fan in Indiana. It really is a fascinating subject.

Peck
01-18-2008, 01:24 PM
[QUOTE=Putnam;644803]What's the big scandal, Peck?

First of all there is no big scandal, just a very poor lack of judgement and character IMO.

I was totally with Uncle Buck at the beginning of yesterday when we first started hearing this.

Not telling everyone was no big deal to me. I completley understood why they would want to keep private and frankly I didn't care.

However once the story started to be told, the constant denials and then the changing of the story made me start to question the entire thing. Then by the time I listened to the coach's radio show and then read this article I was in the Shade & Hicks camp of "why are you lying to us".

Suspended, de-activated, told not to come, whatever. As Seth has already appropriatley said were all adults here so come on. This is one of those statement where we have to determine what the word "Is" is.

And no I'm sorry but I will agree to adamantly disagree with you over his slap at Jackson.

How about this.

Putnam say's "O'Brien did not call Jackson a liar, or even imply that he is a liar."

Peck's retort to this is: "consider the source".

Does that mean that all I am saying about you is that you are just not a reliable source when it comes to information regarding the team? Or am I saying that what you have to say is not worth paying attention to because you either are a liar or spreader of unintential false truths?

Personally I'd think it was the latter and not the former.

His retort to talking about the suspension was to call out a player on another team by name and IMO degrading him.

But if you want to disagree that is your poragative.

Now to Will.

I know you want your news filtered through the cloak of Pacers positive spin, however I hate to break this to you.

The first internet site to even bring this up was....

pacers.com

Now you can say, and I would agree, that he might have known that Wells was going to run with it. But still he didn't have to cover it at all.

Also, this is not to Will, one other problem here IMO.

We are now saying de-activated. At first it was he couldn't play because he was injured. Now it is he is de-activated because the coach can.

Right there is a change of story and frankly would have been an easy out for O'Brien right there.

All he would have had to say was that he de-activated him and gave him permission to miss the game and that this was an all internal matter & then refuse to comment beyond that.

But the fact that he had to go so far above and beyond to try and make Well's and Jackson out to be liars is my problem.

Well that and how he threw away the Pheonix game.

Putnam
01-18-2008, 01:40 PM
Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.


Anyway, are we are happy that rule #4 was revoked?




January 26, 2007:</B> Rule #1 heavily revised to focus on demeaning/derogatory posts. (No Demeaning/Derogatory Posts)
New Rule #2 (Infractions, Warnings, Appeals).
What was Rule #4 (No Verbal Attacks on any Players, Coaches, Staff, Management, or Owners) removed.
Rule for No Advertising "removed", but becomes part of new Rule #2 (Infractions, Warnings, Appeals).
Rule (No Trolling) tweaked.
(About the Administrators) tweaked.
Fixed a handful of typos.

Peck
01-18-2008, 01:56 PM
Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.


Anyway, are we are happy that rule #4 was revoked?

What????

I'm sorry you feel this way and normally I would never take a public stand like this but I feel in this case I have to.

I have been an active poster on here since about 6 months into the beginning of this site. I have been an admin. for about a year and a half I think, I'm not real sure there.

But I have never once in all of my time here ever used my admin. power "if there is such a thing" to end a discussion on a topic.

What you just implied, either intentionally or not, is that you are not able to continue this discussion with me for fear that I will either now or in the future abuse my position and unfairly punish you.

Sorry but that unfairly punishes me.

I have not now nor would I ever abuse that privleage. I work at the discretion of our sites found, Mal, and if you think in any of my dealing with you on here are unfair please feel free to take it up with him.

I thought we were just have a discussion about the Indiana Pacers, a subject which we both happen to care deeply about. As you can see from any of my posts I often take a contrairian point of view. See my thoughts about O'Neal and Walsh for example.

However I do not stand above my posts holding the "Ban Hammer" to anyone who dares disagree with me. If I didn't want disagreement I would just write a blog and not bother to read replies.

Hell, look at Will. I have known Will for years and respect the hell out of him both as a person and a poster. But we disagree on many subjects. Yet Will is one of the first people I seek out to read when I come online.

I have always respected you as a poster as well. I enjoy your take on the team and I have zero problem that you disagree with my point of view here. Frankly I'll admit that I'm an opinionated blowhard so often times I understand why people disagree with me.

I'm just very sad and dissapointed though that you feel this way.

I will apologize in ending and say that I never meant you any offense and I hope that we can continue posting with each other in the future.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Geez, everybody's so testy. I think he's kidding Peck. Calmicus Downicus.

Stephen Jackson. Consider the source. I'm glad JOB and I see eye to eye on this. In the whole scheme of things who cares. The Pacers won even if I didn't get to see my favorite player that night. I will start a new thread about something else.

Since86
01-18-2008, 02:18 PM
Could the disagreement in the film session been about Tinsley's lackluster play, and he said it was due to his injury, so JOB told him to stay home if it was that bad?

I agree with Peck on this issue, probably more because I can't wait til the day Tinsley is no longer a Pacer, but there is a chance that there's a midline here.

I 100% think that he didn't play because of the argument/disagreement and he was told to stay home because of it. You don't have a player from another team, no matter who it is, saying that he was suspended for no good reason. He could have had it slightly wrong, but he was told from someone about JOB's and Tinsley's fallout, so it's not like the story doesn't have legs.

I wouldn't have that much of an issue about it if it concerned Rush. It concerns me because of Tinsley's past issues. He was given excuse after excuse after excuse to not play the games when he was either unhappy or the team was unhappy with him. ENOUGH BABYING HIM!!!! He said he was relieved to be treated like a man, jabbing at RC, so treat him like a man damnit.

Bball
01-18-2008, 02:31 PM
Tinsley should've been "inactivated" after the Phoenix game. I'm fine with "inactivating" him for the rest of the year... or his career.

-Bball

MagicRat
01-18-2008, 02:33 PM
But I have never once in all of my time here ever used my admin. power "if there is such a thing" to end a discussion on a topic.

It's not the admin power that has people concerned, Chancellor. It's the power of the dark side........
http://chaos.able-towers.com/%7Emagicrat/darthpeckius.jpg

JayRedd
01-18-2008, 02:49 PM
Okely, dokely. You're the admin and I'm just Ned Flanders. I find what I said earlier a whole lot more reasonable than what you've said, so I'll let you have the last word...unless JayRedd can end the thread with a joke. That would be cool.

Ever hear the one about the gynecologist who looked up his old girlfriend?

jmoney2584
01-18-2008, 02:53 PM
I would have to say there is nothing personal in all of this. Everyones attitude is just a product of frustration and lack of clarity on the direction of this franchise. Although no mano-e-mano negativity is needed, we all should be proud that we care about this team enough to be testy when the proverbial "poo" hits the fan. It is this which makes this site so great, pulls us together, and enables us all to define our own "Pacers Zen".

Putnam
01-18-2008, 03:00 PM
My earlier statement was nothing more than a final salute to you. We're cool.


What????

I'm sorry you feel this way and normally I would never take a public stand like this but I feel in this case I have to.

I'm just very sad and dissapointed though that you feel this way.




Every society has order and structure. In traditional societies in Africa and Asia, people are allowed to voice their opinions, sometimes for hours on end. But when the oldest man present speaks, everyone knows the discussion is over. Likewise, in our legislative processes, members are allowed to speak, but one person holds the gavel and when they bang it, the discussion is over.

Pacers Digest is also a place where people are free to voice their opinions pretty freely. There is no formal method of resolving any thread or discussion and so some of them go on a long while. One thing that helps is when people recognize that they've already said what they have to say and don't need to say it again. That's what I was doing. I could have just stopped participating in the thread, but I said what I said as a sort of tip of the hat to you. "I'm satisfied that my point of view is clearly stated already, so you can have the floor."

There are some insiders and some not-insiders in PD,as with any society. I don't have any problem with that at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with my role as the forum's Ned Flanders. I envision Pacers Digest as a four-years-long party at Hicks' house that I somehow got invited to. It doesn't bother me at all that UncleBuck is sitting in the comfortablest chair, or that Abel is holding the remote control, or that Kegboy is standing nearest to the tap. They were here first. As you say, you've been here a long time, too. I respect that, and as far as I'm concerned that means you deserve the last word. Also, you are an admin, and as far as I'm concerned that also means you deserve the last word.

I write pages and pages of stuff at my job and I always aim to be as clear as possible -- never intimating anything that can be stated clearly. If I had intended to imply that you were brandishing a "ban hammer" I would have called you a bully or something. I didn't and I have no reason to think that you are. :kiss:

When I said you were an admin, it was because I wanted to make a personal statement about you (to distimnguish you from myself), and I didn't want to draw attention to your funny ears, so I just said that you are an admin. No malice intended at all. Really.


We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....

ABADays
01-18-2008, 03:06 PM
Look, if the team hadn't borrowed Shade's "Van Gundy" films there wouldn't have been a problem. Tins would not have gotten out of line for feeling inadequate.

Peck
01-18-2008, 04:03 PM
My earlier statement was nothing more than a final salute to you. We're cool.




Every society has order and structure. In traditional societies in Africa and Asia, people are allowed to voice their opinions, sometimes for hours on end. But when the oldest man present speaks, everyone knows the discussion is over. Likewise, in our legislative processes, members are allowed to speak, but one person holds the gavel and when they bang it, the discussion is over.

Pacers Digest is also a place where people are free to voice their opinions pretty freely. There is no formal method of resolving any thread or discussion and so some of them go on a long while. One thing that helps is when people recognize that they've already said what they have to say and don't need to say it again. That's what I was doing. I could have just stopped participating in the thread, but I said what I said as a sort of tip of the hat to you. "I'm satisfied that my point of view is clearly stated already, so you can have the floor."

There are some insiders and some not-insiders in PD,as with any society. I don't have any problem with that at all. I'm perfectly comfortable with my role as the forum's Ned Flanders. I envision Pacers Digest as a four-years-long party at Hicks' house that I somehow got invited to. It doesn't bother me at all that UncleBuck is sitting in the comfortablest chair, or that Abel is holding the remote control, or that Kegboy is standing nearest to the tap. They were here first. As you say, you've been here a long time, too. I respect that, and as far as I'm concerned that means you deserve the last word. Also, you are an admin, and as far as I'm concerned that also means you deserve the last word.

I write pages and pages of stuff at my job and I always aim to be as clear as possible -- never intimating anything that can be stated clearly. If I had intended to imply that you were brandishing a "ban hammer" I would have called you a bully or something. I didn't and I have no reason to think that you are. :kiss:

When I said you were an admin, it was because I wanted to make a personal statement about you (to distimnguish you from myself), and I didn't want to draw attention to your funny ears, so I just said that you are an admin. No malice intended at all. Really.


We now return to our regularly scheduled program.....

Why I oughta ban....

Oops sorry power went to my head again.:)

We're cool, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I would not do that to anyone.

Sorry if I over reacted.

Obviously if you are the Ned Flanders that would make the loud fat obnoxious neighbor.

Doh!!!

:buddies:

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2008, 04:13 PM
I didn't make my point clear. If online sites knew Tins was out, then the Warriors knew he was out. Thus Jack as a member of the Warriors would know he was out, and why.

I still think everyone is making a big deal out of nothing, and I don't hold with lying. (as the Pacers have been accused of doing)
But you and I don't disagree that Jackson knew he was out and the REAL reason why. Where we differ is what we think his knowledge of the Pacers PR situation was at that time.

For all Jackson knew the Pacers had disclosed Tins being suspended with pay for an internal matter that has since been resolved. So as the elephant in the room he'd certainly mention it when talking about not playing against Tins.



Peck, as I understand it my continued existence here is meant to act as ongoing proof of just how much you keep your banning powers in check. ;) Maybe I need I new avy with a scarlet A on it.

JayRedd
01-18-2008, 04:16 PM
Maybe I need I new avy with a scarlet A on it.

As long as you don't go back to a series of elderly or ambigiously gendered women from the 1980s, feel free to do whatever you'd like.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2008, 04:20 PM
Geez, everybody's so testy. I think he's kidding Peck. Calmicus Downicus.
I will not have my fwends widiculed by the common postery. Anybody else feel like a little giggul, when I mention my friend....Calmicus.....Downicus?
(snicker)
He has a wife you know. You know what she's called? She's called Incontinentia.

Incontinentia Buttocks!
:lol2:



As long as you don't go back to a series of elderly or ambigiously gendered women from the 1980s, feel free to do whatever you'd like.
Well I did say "A" and not "P" or "N". But I'll admit that you just took Rue McClanahan off my list of options.
Now Janet Reno is more 90's. Elderly, check. Ambigiously gendered, check. Looks like a double dip to me.

Will Galen
01-18-2008, 04:22 PM
Frankly I'll admit that I'm an opinionated blowhard so often times I understand why people disagree with me.


That's why I disagree with you! (Giggle, giggle, snort, snort, snort!)

JayRedd
01-18-2008, 04:35 PM
Looks like a double dip to me.

If that's what you're into.

avoidingtheclowns
01-18-2008, 04:46 PM
pY8jaGs7xJ0

Hicks
01-18-2008, 04:57 PM
Geez, everybody's so testy. I think he's kidding Peck. Calmicus Downicus.

When you're on the other side of it (as an admin) it's very hard to tell and it can hurt feelings easily. I've been there before many times. If he was kidding, then he was kidding, but if not I think he's being very unfair to Peck in that regard. It's just a conversation and had nothing to do with who is and who is not an administrator.

*edit* Now I see the follow up. Case closed I guess.

QuickRelease
01-18-2008, 05:15 PM
pY8jaGs7xJ0

:dj:

McKeyFan
01-18-2008, 05:41 PM
Ever hear the one about the gynecologist who looked up his old girlfriend?

He was also a doctor of English, and a cunning linguist.

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Oh, FotC, what problems don't you solve?
:D

This thread derailed like Amtrack took over.

dryley
01-19-2008, 03:47 PM
Who do you think told Jackson? Someone that knows more than anyone on here, that's for sure, and probably Tinsley.

Obviously they had some issue at the film session and that turned into a pretty standard "suspended with pay" situation. I agree with Peck that JOB tried to downplay it just like Rick used to do, if anything it's for the player's benefit (their rep/image).

It came out and JOB/TPTB are trying to spin out of an awkward situation.

And blaming Jackson is just naive (or more likely biased). When he said this how in the world does he know what the official post-game explanation from TPTB is? For all he knows at that point is that this has happened and has been publically addressed in the pre-game presser.

You guys act like he got up the next day, read the paper and said "I'm not going to let them get away with this, my boy was unfairly suspended." That's not what happened. He answered a question as though the suspension was already a known issue.


Technically, but come on, we're adults here. And regardless there is "asked to stay home" due to injury and due to disagreement. He's still denying the disagreement and if that's true then he is lying/spinning.


If I'm folllowing this correctly, the "film" they would have been watching would be either the Phoenix game or the first Golden State game. I can see how these may have caused a problem between the two of them.....At any rate, it will be interesting to see how the next couple of games go!

ABADays
01-19-2008, 05:52 PM
UncleBuck is sitting in the comfortablest chair, or that Abel is holding the remote control, or that Kegboy is standing nearest to the tap.

Hm - I see a coup attempt sometime in the near future.

JayRedd
01-19-2008, 06:25 PM
Hm - I see a coup attempt sometime in the near future.

"Et tu, MagicRat?"