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

Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

    http://www.nypost.com/sports/16652.htm

    OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT

    February 27, 2004 -- FOLLOWING a game in New Jersey at last season's Finals, The Mysterious J. was introduced to Jack Nies. "I never heard of him," she said later, taking me by surprise. After all, Nies and Dick Bavetta, at 66, are the NBA's oldest active referees.

    "He must be one of the better ones," The Mysterious One remarked.

    I thought so, too. Until Wednesday night, anyway, which only goes to show we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, some are conspicuously more harmful than others.

    With less than a half-minute remaining Wednesday, Nuggets up two and in possession following an offensive rebound by Carmelo Anthony, Nies teamed up with Jess (Larry Johnson's court-appointed guardian angel) Kersey and Michael Henderson to lavish the Lakers with a chance to confiscate an undeserved victory at the Soda Machine, er, Pepsi Center.

    Naturally, L.A. capitalized, 112-111, relying at crunch time as always, on Luke Walton's cunning penetration/pristine passing and the outpost accuracy of Kareem Rush.

    Otherwise, the whistling-while-they-foul-up crew would only be receiving a glossed-over dishonorable mention on the east coast and a covert fine by boss man, Stu Jackson.

    Instead, the wrong team won, which was undeniable to one and all . . . minus three. The refs maintain their lapse in judgment was "consensual."

    Instead of simply admitting Henderson's inadvertent tweet was an honest mistake (there had been no 24-second violation; Andre Miller's corner jumper drew iron) and giving the ball back to the Nuggets, the motley crew decided a jump ball (Shaq was allowed to steal it) was the appropriate course of action; Jackson concurs, which as usual makes no sense whatsoever.

    Instead, the reverberations, repercussions (the 32-27 Nuggets now have dropped six of ten in their battle with the on-rushing 29-28 Blazers for the West's eighth playoff spot) and treacherous current of unrest are massive.

    Yesterday's public disclosure by Jackson that at least one ref screwed up cannot diminish the damage to the declining reputation of the officiating corps. As a whole, their competence has never been more under attack on a daily basis. Over the last 35 years, I cannot recall so many abrasive complaints by executives, coaches and players. And it's not as if the frequent fines (minnow bites compared to what these people bank) by the league office are about to silence the across-the-board outcry.

    OK, so Jackson uncharacteristically confessed an injustice occurred. Good for him! For the good of the league and its credibility, it was a righteous message that needed to be made. Now, what? What benefit do the Nuggets gain from that acknowledgment?

    OK, Jeff Bzdelik and Marcus Camby probably won't get well-earned suspensions for their uncivilized post-game behavior. That would be big, definitely a step in the right direction.

    Still, should Denver get eliminated from the playoffs by a single game, how does the league intend to appease the Nuggets and their fans? What's David Stern's game-plan? How 'bout replaying the final 27 seconds or so from the point of blunder? How 'bout a do-over from scratch? You've heard of a make-up call? How 'bout a make-up game? Just don't tell us which one.

    Better yet, how 'bout weeding out at least one-third of the ineptitude by returning to a two-ref system? It worked for me. One less decision-maker. One less guy to get in the way on an already overcrowded surface. One less busy body to infringe on a partner's territory — which too often leads to late calls, no calls or out-of-position calls. In other words, one less inflated ego to deal with and muck things up.

    Better yet, how 'bout eradicating refs altogether? Let players call their own fouls? They can't do any worse. There can't be more confusion or hostility.

    "You know the refs are going to hurt you at some point during the game, maybe even over a long stretch," a Midwest Division team president groaned to me over the phone. "The most you can hope for is they don't decide the game. But, if you watch the game at all, you know those expectations stopped being realistic long before last night."

    As long as we're evaluating right and wrong, Kobe Bryant can only hope all future forays into Colorado are adjudicated with the same minimal attention to detail.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

    I can forgive the sensationalism, the incorrect "scoops," the tabloid-style basketball journalism. Hey, nobody's perfect.

    What puzzles me is that the guy just isn't that great of a writer, period. It's like he's not really trying...

    Half the people on this board could write more interesting, insightful stuff than Vescey.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

      I can forgive the sensationalism, the incorrect "scoops," the tabloid-style basketball journalism. Hey, nobody's perfect.

      What puzzles me is that the guy just isn't that great of a writer, period. It's like he's not really trying...

      Half the people on this board could write more interesting, insightful stuff than Vescey.
      One could argue that the New York Post has never made a virtue of hiring people who were, you know, good writers.
      Mickael Pietrus Le site officiel

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Vecsey on Officiating

        Jess (Larry Johnson's court-appointed guardian angel) Kersey

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

          I forgot to post Vecsey's Sunday article on the same topic...

          February 29, 2004 -- TYPICALLY, a number of NBA games each season are decided for the worst on account of a bad call by a referee.

          This season is no different: Relying strictly on my own two eyes, I can cite at least five verdicts that went the wrong way because an official blundered, including Michael Henderson's itchy shot-clock whistle from out of position — and his partner's inept incapacity to straighten out the situation — at the tail end of the Lakers' tarnished one-point win over the Nuggets.

          Don't hold me to this, but unless David Stern can figure out how to remove humans from the equation, it seems there's always going to be a certain amount of human error.

          If cagey coaches and near-perfect players (and surgeons) are known to make an "occasional" critical mistake when the atmospheric pressure gets extreme, why would we expect a referee to be faultless under identical conditions?

          Especially one who's in the early developmental stage (two seasons) of his NBA career!

          Yet, for some reason, the league is going out of its normally clandestine way to publicly flog one of its own. For some reason, the commissioner strongly urged Stu Jackson to denounce Henderson's snap judgment as prickly poor, strip him of his striped shirt for three games and order him to appear on Stern's New York carpet Tuesday morning.

          Contrary to the referees union, Henderson has not been suspended (he's not being docked any pay; fine money is another story), at least not "officially."

          Even if the league were so inclined, its agreement with the union stringently forbids such a step in this case. Refs may be suspended for, among other things, a misapplication of the rules, but definitely not for poor judgment. If that were the case, there wouldn't be an employable ref on earth.

          Nevertheless, the league is attempting to say Henderson's slip-up is far shoddier than poor judgment. That it's beneath and beyond excusable, every-day breakdowns such as misidentifying a critical 3-pointer as a two, or voiding a game-winning shot on a charge when it was indeed a block. That it doesn't come close to comparing to missing a call or imagining one. What an outrageously irrational stance! For some reason, the crucifixion is on.

          Maybe it's because Henderson is said to be the league's lowest-ranking ref and the time might be ripe to notify him his floor days are numbered. Maybe it's because Henderson supposedly disobeyed instructions given prior to Andre Miller's jumper with two ticks left on the 24-second timepiece. Supposedly, crew chief Jack Nies told him any subsequent shot-clock violation wasn't his responsibility; his sight lines were clearly unsatisfactory.

          At the same time, Nies and Jess Kersey, who, by the way, have 60 years of pro experience between them, totally mishandled the touchy situation following Henderson's "inadvertent" call, it says here. When informed Miller's shot had clipped the side ring, Henderson was deflated but undaunted. He supposedly told his partners the Nuggets should retain possession since he didn't blow his whistle until after Carmelo Anthony got the rebound.

          That's exactly what I saw and heard. This was the sequence-shot, controlled rebound, whistle. Not shot, whistle and rebound. Or shot, uncontrolled rebound and whistle, as the league claims. I've since talked extensively to two veteran observers of such bang-bang stuff who either watched the game and replay live, or zeroed in on the chaos on tape; they embrace my viewpoint.

          Jackson, on the other hand, bluntly stated Nies and Kersey did the right thing by resolving the disagreement with a jump ball, which Shaq is licensed to steal. As usual, Stu doesn't have the foggiest clue what's going on.

          Be that as it may, I've yet to provide the real reason Jackson hunted down Henderson on his way to work in Seattle for Friday night's game vs. the Suns and brought him to justice.

          You see, there's a conspiracy theory that has gained dangerous momentum over the last few years that the league will do anything in its power to make sure the Lakers play on national TV in the Finals. You know very well that's the expletive-deleted message Nuggets owner E. Stanley transmitted to Stern. It's a distasteful perception that needs to be quickly exterminated.

          In other words, it's (over)time to nail a scapegoat to the cross. Who more convenient than Henderson?

          P.S. It's getting so bad, Glen Sather is laughing at the Knicks; now certifiably mediocre (10-10, five straight losses) since Lenny Wilkens was exhumed. The bad news is, their road trip ends today at Denver; there's no reason to believe the refs are going to mess over the Nuggets in this one.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Vecsey on Officiating [Updated with an article from Sam Smith]

            And this pile of crap from Sam Smith in the Tribune ...

            Give referees more respect
            Sam Smith

            February 29, 2004

            I know a friend of Spike Lee's.

            I am not necessarily proud of this, and it's hardly name-dropping anymore. But we were talking one day about all these celebrity hangers-on at NBA games, and I mentioned Lee and his pop-up courtside seat at Knicks games.

            "Spike knows the game," his friend insisted.

            "Sure," I doubted.

            "He yells `foul' all the time," his friend explained.

            There is a message for most coaches, players and fans: Just shut up.

            The officials who referee NBA games are the best in all of sport. Just who would you like to see replace them? College referees? Part-time officials like in the NFL? Out of shape baseball umpires? Some soccer ref sticking a red index card in someone's face?

            The day they made contact acceptable in the NBA was the day they made the sport impossible to officiate.

            The officials in the NBA get the calls right a heck of a lot more often than, say, players make a jump shot.

            This personal rant comes about because of the mini-protest NBA officials made Friday night for the suspension of second-year referee Michael Henderson. At the 10 NBA games Friday night, the refs wore their shirts inside out and wore Henderson's No. 62 in solidarity.

            Henderson was the referee in the Denver-Los Angeles Lakers game Wednesday who called a 24-second violation with the Nuggets leading 111-109 in the last seconds. The referees huddled and agreed Andre Miller's shot grazed the rim so there shouldn't have been a whistle against Denver.

            Rules call for a jump ball, which the Lakers won. Kareem Rush then won the game with a three-pointer that sent the fading Nuggets into convulsions. They see their first postseason appearance in nine years slipping away. If they miss the playoffs by one game . . .

            Lakers coach Phil Jackson, not surprisingly, said the ball did miss the rim so it really was a violation.

            "[League officials] weren't at the game, we were," Jackson said. "The shot didn't hit the rim. Kobe [Bryant] jumped up and knocked the ball into the rim. I think Henderson made the right call."

            The real surprise was that NBA Senior Vice President Stu Jackson admitted the call was incorrect. Then the referees' association revealed Henderson was suspended, resulting in the protest from referees over the chilling effect such an action might have.

            Deputy Commissioner Russ Granik said there would be disciplinary action against those referees taking part in Friday's protest (there were none Saturday) and Commissioner David Stern issued a statement Saturday reading: "Last night's display was woefully inconsistent with the professionalism with which NBA officials normally conduct themselves. There is nothing more to say at this time."

            There probably will be plenty, however, after the season when the referees' collective bargaining agreement expires.

            Yes, it seems there has been an increasing amount of angst over NBA officiating this season.

            Shaquille O'Neal was suspended for a rage on live TV--after the Lakers had won the game. We have seen the normally placid Rick Carlisle and Ray Allen ejected and fined in disputes with officials.

            Veteran coach Hubie Brown raged last week during a wild game during which more than 60 fouls were called. There have been some were bad calls, like the one in which Chauncey Billups had a winning basket waved off last month because of an offensive foul call.

            Yes, officials make plenty of mistakes, and some have annoying attitudes, like Steve Javie, who once ejected a mascot. Some have short fuses, like Joey Crawford, who has been close to ejecting whole teams. And some are a little too theatrical, like Dick Bavetta, father of the run-and-skip charge call.

            But think about what your job would be like if you were doing it front of 18,000 people--or 600 if you're in Atlanta--and then have to watch a replay of it while being critiqued.

            There are NBA observers at every game to monitor the officiating. Then the league analyzes game tapes afterward. Reports are filed back to the referees on every questioned call.

            I sat with a referee after the controversial Game 6 of the Lakers-Kings Western Conference finals in 2002. He admitted the crew seemed to make several bad calls. Refs know mistakes are part of the game.

            But since the NBA instituted instant replay for buzzer shots, the refs never have been the reason for a loss. If the Kings made their regular-season percentage of free throws they would have won that series.

            When Nuggets coaches and players calmed down last week, Marcus Camby, noting a Nuggets' double-digit fourth quarter lead, conceded: "You can't say the refs took it from us. The game was in our control."

            So you try to decide when Shaquille O'Neal is fouling or being fouled when "some" contact is permitted under NBA rules. Sure, there are inequities. Rookies don't seem to get the benefit veterans do, and stars get more freedom.

            But as the great philosopher Phil Jackson once pointed out: "The pretty girl gets kissed." Not sure if he read that in Kierkegaard or Spinoza.

            But as a philosophy, mine is "Everyone shut up and just play."

            Copyright © 2004, The Chicago Tribune
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...
            X