Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

    http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons/...B01-242652.htm

    Brown, Pistons in ugly mess

    There's plenty of blame to go around, but situation makes all look bad.

    By Bob Wojnowski / The Detroit News

    Stop the nonsense. Everybody. Just stop it. The feel-good Pistons are in danger of becoming the ugly, ruthless Pistons, and Larry Brown is in danger of reconfirming the worst suspicions about him. And both sides are shrugging and acting as if they're powerless to stop it.

    The Pistons' coaching drama has become a sad, sordid tale of ego and mistrust and false tales and fake smiles and whispered accusations. The Pistons can act as if it's all Brown's fault, that he wants to leave, and some in the media can gleefully paint it that way. But I'm sorry: If Brown has a track record (goodness, he sure does), the Pistons are developing a nasty one of their own.

    Two years ago, they fired one of the best young coaches in the NBA, Rick Carlisle, under murky circumstances.

    Now Brown, a Hall of Famer who helped lead the Pistons to back-to-back Finals and came within a few minutes of back-to-back titles, could be removed.

    While Joe Dumars waits for Brown to tell him when he can return to coaching, after Brown underwent a procedure on his bladder last week, Brown wonders if the Pistons and owner Bill Davidson really want him or are just pretending that they do.

    It's a ridiculous stare-down with no deadline set, although the Pistons have had their replacement, Flip Saunders, hovering for months, as if they planned for this all along.

    It's an unseemly mess for what we've considered one of the classiest franchises in sports. Someone has to exhibit leadership here, and it's on the Pistons to do so. I can't believe Davidson is excited about losing, arguably, the best coach in the NBA. I also can't believe he's happy that some in his organization are spreading ugly stories, tainting Brown.

    The latest, from Sports Illustrated's online edition, is a sleazy stretch from an "unimpeachable source within the Pistons," suggesting that in Game 7 of the Finals, Brown couldn't fully motivate his players because "when they looked in his eyes they saw someone halfway out the door."

    Cripes. With all due respect, what does that garbage mean? And how can anyone irresponsibly ignore the bottom line here? If Brown took the Pistons to Game 7 of the Finals even though he supposedly no longer could motivate his players, geez, he must be a better coach than we imagined.

    Brown's 'dilemma'

    Brown has heard the stories. Speaking from his vacation home in the Hamptons in New York, he sounds slightly wounded but at least publicly willing to put it aside and return to the Pistons.

    "I'm planning to be there on October 3 (the opening of training camp)," Brown, 64, said. "My dilemma is, I can't tell them 100 percent I'll be ready because the doctors don't know and I don't know. But if the Pistons can't wait, let me know, don't put this stuff out there. I mean, what would you do if you were me?"

    I told him I'd give the Pistons a fair estimate on when he believed he'd be healthy enough to coach. I also told him, if he really wanted to stay in Detroit, maybe he should try harder to communicate with the Pistons, set up a meeting with Davidson, do what it takes to reconcile.

    Then I asked him this: If you were Dumars and the Pistons, not knowing when you'll be back, what would you do?

    Brown thought for a second, then answered.

    "If I was them, and they really valued me to be their coach, I'd say, 'Take as long as you can to get well and we'll figure it out.' That's what they'd do if it was a player. That's what other teams have done for coaches with health or personal issues -- Jerry Sloan at Utah, Rudy Tomjanovich at Houston, Don Nelson at Dallas. This is not a made-up thing. I have a health problem."

    He does, and somehow, that gets downplayed. He also has a credibility problem that gets played up, and that's damaging him right now. But while some have giddily portrayed Brown as this Lone Liar, it's important to note there's enough insincerity on both sides -- yes, both sides -- to fuel an entire political campaign.

    Is the relationship between the Pistons and Brown irreparable? If the stubbornness festers much longer, it could be. Dumars doesn't want to comment, other than to say he'd welcome Brown back, and the only issue is one of timing, trying to balance Brown's health needs with the team's coaching needs.

    Fair enough. It has been difficult at times to tell if Brown really wants to be back, although he showed plenty by enduring incredible discomfort all season. And his passion did crackle during the playoffs. Before that, his mixed messages could have been a reaction to the Pistons' mixed messages (or vice versa).

    No matter what you hear in the Pistons' public posturing, signs have been splattered in numerous media outlets that they want to move on, that Davidson is upset, for reasons that aren't completely clear, or fair.

    They're sick of Brown's drama and distractions? Hmm. So, after wringing the good out of him, reaching two Finals, they're unwilling to put up with the total quirky package, the one they knew they were getting when they hired him? They're miffed he talked to Cleveland? Yes, the timing by Brown and the Cavs' ownership during the playoffs was phenomenally poor. But remember, Cavs owner Dan Gilbert has a friendly business relationship with the Pistons, and this was a fallback management position because of Brown's health. And in case anyone missed it, Brown didn't take the Cleveland job immediately after the season, as many predicted.

    They're miffed he mentioned New York was his "dream job"? Are the Pistons, who have won three titles since the Knicks won their last, so insecure they can't stomach their coach waxing nostalgic about his hometown team? Please.

    Brown's wife, Shelly, denied emphatically the other day that Larry was interested in coaching the Knicks next season. She said he wants to coach here. He said he wants to coach here.

    But Isiah Thomas is keeping the New York position open as long as he can, and yes, if the Pistons fire Brown, you can bet he'd explore the Knicks job, when he's healthy.

    That's not the point, although many think it is. It's not whether Brown will go to Cleveland or New York or wherever. He'll always be coveted somewhere. It's this: Why was there a breakdown between a great coach and a great organization after just two years (far shorter than the normal Brown timetable), making a change possible?

    "I have no idea what's going on, but you're not hearing anything bad from me," Brown said. "Mr. D (Davidson) knows what I'm about. I love the man. I haven't shortchanged anybody. ... I don't want to step down because I don't want to coach anywhere but Detroit, and I'm not ready to retire. I love my team, and I think the players really care for me."


    Saunders still on hold


    Brown missed 17 games during the season after hip surgery and a bladder procedure. The Pistons floundered each time, and management appeared to push Brown to return.

    If the drama affected the players, every team should be so affected. If the Pistons are arrogant enough to think they can plug in Saunders and keep rolling, they'd better be careful. And Saunders had better look closely at the dynamics of this job -- great team to coach, shaky management support.

    By the way, Saunders does have $5.5 million coming from Minnesota this season, so if the Pistons are looking for a contingency plan while waiting for Brown, couldn't Saunders wait, without losing any money?

    Some shriek this is all about the money, about the $18 million-$20 million owed Brown in the remaining three years of his contract. The suggestion is, he's trying to get fired to collect the dough, but I'm not buying that. I do believe the money matters to Davidson, who understandably is reluctant to pay off Brown then see him coach in, say, New York.

    No, this is more about ego and pride and arrogance, on both sides. It's hard to believe Brown is so wounded, so dug in, he'll get fired, or force a buyout, from the best job he's ever had.

    But everyone knows his reputation of wanderlust, so no one should be shocked. More alarming, just two years after dismissing one successful coach in a strange way, the Pistons might be in the same ugly spot, prepared to do it again.

    That's exactly the direction this is headed, unless someone is smart enough and strong enough to step in and stop it.

    You can reach Bob Wojnowski at bob.wojnowski@detnews.com.

  • #2
    Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

    much as I like Wojo, this is no less balanced than the report in SI. Larry have a weekly interview on Wojo's radio show, and so did Carlisle.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

      Originally posted by Kstat
      much as I like Wojo, this is no less balanced than the report in SI. Larry have a weekly interview on Wojo's radio show, and so did Carlisle.
      I read both articles and I'll go with Wojo as being the most balanced. SI puts the blame on Larry Brown, whereas Wojo points out that both sides are at fault and need to have a face to face.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

        Originally posted by Kstat
        much as I like Wojo, this is no less balanced than the report in SI. Larry have a weekly interview on Wojo's radio show, and so did Carlisle.
        do you really think that the article from SI was balanced? It had some venom and spite in it. That Ian guy from SI was on Jamie and Brady show(morning Detroit sports show) and he sounded so fake to me.

        Wojo's is article is definitely balanced in that he lays blame on both sides and asks what each other would do if they were in the other sides position.
        I think Larry has a good point in that other franchises, if they really respect and like their coach, would give him as much time as he need and let him decide. They would do it for players why not for a coach.

        As much as I respect Joe D and the Pistons franchise, what they did to Carlisle after being so successful and the smearing that they did in the press afterwards was very bad. At the time, it was more than a basketball move. It has proved out to be good for the Pistons, but Larry would not have won without Rasheed.
        ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

          yeah, and the way the Pacers treated zeke was all class.....

          You don't see me chastizing them for it, though. That was a buisness decision, and so was when the Pistons fired carlisle.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

            Originally posted by Kstat
            yeah, and the way the Pacers treated zeke was all class.....

            You don't see me chastizing them for it, though. That was a buisness decision, and so was when the Pistons fired carlisle.

            Isiah did not have the success that Carlisle had with the Pistons. What kind of business? The business of basketball or the business of "power struggle, one more year on a contract, do we extend him or not?"

            And also, the Pacers did not start a smear campaign on Isiah after he was let go. The whole smearing thing was classless because the guy could probably never have gotten a head coaching job if not for Bird

            Their was a mangement change (Larry Bird) and he wanted to bring in hsi people.

            Carlisle was Joe D's guy, what changed? He was winning? was he not?
            ANDY: I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy winning or get busy losing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

              Originally posted by Kstat
              yeah, and the way the Pacers treated zeke was all class.....

              You don't see me chastizing them for it, though. That was a buisness decision, and so was when the Pistons fired carlisle.
              Stop dragging us into Piston affairs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                Originally posted by Kstat
                yeah, and the way the Pacers treated zeke was all class.....

                You don't see me chastizing them for it, though. That was a buisness decision, and so was when the Pistons fired carlisle.
                You were pretty p!ssed when word came down of Carlisle's firing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                  Originally posted by Shade
                  You were pretty p!ssed when word came down of Carlisle's firing.
                  Yeah, I was, until I found out they had a replacement plan.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                    This article was pretty much Wojo's initial response on the radio the day the SI report came out and I have to agree that the "they couldn't see a game 7 victory in Larry's eyes" line is paperback romance novel crap.

                    On the topic of other team's staying on hold for their coaches. I think thats a poor anaolgy. Sloan, Rudy T, and Don Nelson were all faces of their franchise to a much greater extent then Brown is to Detroit, they all had a pretty long history with their teams. Also, with the Mavs, as soon as they got their "next in line" head coach on the bench they practically threw Nelson (or Nelson threw himself) into the front office. Of course, the first response to that should be that neither Nelson nor Sloan won a championship for their team and that should buy Brown something (to which the reply would be that Detroit was pretty good before Brown got there, so how much should they owe?).

                    There is also no comment about what the Piston front office faces should Brown not come back after all this delay, come back and not go the whole season, or even just quit after next year. Right now, there looks to be a half-way decent replacement for Brown. Next season looks much less promising in that department.

                    At the very least, its good to see a backlash in the press to the negative comments out of the Piston front office. Either there was no need to play that hand (if indeed they were intentionally leaked) or the ship should have tighter lips (if the comments were not intentionally leaked).

                    P.S. I wish Wojo wouldn't use so many "gee-williker" type phrases in his writing. Did his high school newspaper editor never clue him in to the fact that its simply lazy for a reporter to "express" rather than "describe"?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                      Originally posted by pacerwaala
                      The whole smearing thing was classless because the guy could probably never have gotten a head coaching job if not for Bird
                      Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying. If you are saying Carlisle
                      would have had a difficult time getting another head coaching job, that is simply not true. He might not have gotten one the very next season, but within 12 months he would have without question. It was obvious the job he did with the Pistons

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                        Now, you all know I'm not a big Rick fan, but the way Detroit treated him is for me what happened to Bo Hill in SA is to Jay.

                        People on here always complain that we never hear any Pacers rumors, that they control the local media, etc. I'd rather have that then the vitriol that comes from Detroit's "unnamed sources" on a daily basis. I think it's embarassing, and if Bill Davidson really is such a stand-up guy, he should be ashamed of all the hatchet men his organization seemingly employs.
                        Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                          "daily" is a bit much.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                            Originally posted by Fool
                            "daily" is a bit much.
                            Okay, bi-daily.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A more balanced read on Larry Brown.

                              Still high.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X