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

An answer for Fortaz......

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

  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

    Originally posted by able
    What rattles me most is that Peck & Jay have defined positions, so defined that no matter what happens Ron has no chance to redeem himself with them, yet they oppose those that "defend" Ron at all cost because they "like" him or whatever other reason.
    Huh? I've never considered you one of the "Ron defenders". Yes, you campaigned on here passionately - and usually correctly - about the severity of the punishment but you are generally not one of those that either (1) always find an excuse or justification for his actions, or (2) consistently deny that his disruptions are, in fact, disruptions. And frankly, we've reached the point where there are only a handful of posters that qualify. Even guys like UncleBuck will admit, when pressed, that they believe Ron is a major disruption/ problem, but they still think the good is so unbelievably good that it outweighs the disruptions.

    For example, I've thought your position on the brawl was clear, in that a) Ron was wrong, b) the punishment was too harsh and two wrongs don't make a right, c) you're hopeful that the punishment and counseling contribute to a "new" Ron because you realize the "old" Ron hurts the Pacers in many different ways.

    Anyway, I doubt that anyone will believe me when I say this, but if Ron can get his act together and prove it consistently, and over a long enough term for me to believe its permanent, he will redeem himself with me. It is a possibility. I've had the same roadmap for him to follow to redemption for a long time, he just isn't very successful at staying on the right roads for very long.

    So I just have 0.000000000% confidence that he can do it.

    +++++++++++++


    Perhaps I'm missing something, but Foretaz seems to be fresh from a "building consensus" seminar or something. And it seems to trouble him that some of us formed our opinions on the situation years before he joined the conversation. You can call me "close minded" all you want; but I considered all those facts and alternatives a long time ago and found them to be un-compelling then and and un-compelling now.

    Here's my position, in case anyone has forgotten or hasn't seen it. I was a Pacers fan long before this chucklehead joined them, and I'll be a Pacers fan long after this chucklehead leaves them. But I was opposed to the idea of the Pacers trading for him because I knew how disruptive he had been to the Bulls. As a Pacer, I will cheer for him when he makes good plays solely because he plays for the blue-and-gold. But I do not, and will not, endorse him as a member of the Pacers. My analysis is that he's a big part of the reason why this team never reaches its potential, even though some of that potential is closely tied to just how good of a player he could become. There are other reasons the Pacers never reach thier potential as well, and its my right as a fan to point those out and criticize, whether its coaching/ strategy, personnel decisions, or bad play. Other fans may choose not to exercise thier right to criticize, but that doesn't make me 1) wrong, 2) any less of a fan, 3) any more or any less valuable to PD than members of the brigade. And when I criticize, I'm really just begging the Pacers to prove me wrong; to win a championship.
    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


    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

      Originally posted by Harmonica
      Thanks, but I think I have a pretty good grasp of their meaning.

      I would like to know what behind the scenes incidents you've seen.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

        Originally posted by Since86
        I would like to know what behind the scenes incidents you've seen.
        Note: not intended as a personal response to Since86.

        Would you even believe him if he told you?

        Let's just assume, hypothetically, that all he does is confirm that what's been discussed on here is just the tip of the iceberg...

        Wouldn't you then just say, "yeah, but those are just rumors so I don't believe you."

        Or perhaps he says, "Forget all the stuff that Peck, Jay, bball and others mention, here is the real story..." Would you believe that or would you think its just a far-fetched figment of his imagination?

        Or are you asking someone to name thier source? If so, I wouldn't recommend ever asking that quesiton publicly.
        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


        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

          Jay, thanks for clarifying at the very least two things:

          1. you did not throw me on a heap with others while seeing the validity of what I wrote as such and not as a defense of wrongs.
          2. that you are open to a change of mind if and when the time comes.

          Please do not forget that those who do not live in Chi-town are not so "informed" on Ron as you were before the trade, most of us (me included) start looking at a player when trade talks erupt or a trade is done.
          You had hands on comments read in the papers there daily, which might have influenced your stance from the beginning.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

            Originally posted by able
            -snip-
            Please do not forget that those who do not live in Chi-town are not so "informed" on Ron as you were before the trade, most of us (me included) start looking at a player when trade talks erupt or a trade is done.
            You had hands on comments read in the papers there daily, which might have influenced your stance from the beginning.
            Exactly. I've never tried to hide this bias.
            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


            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

              I've never denied my bias. Love will cause that. However in many ways I should get more upset at Ron then most. have you ever heard of love the person but not their actions. well I love the player but not all his actions.

              The feeling I experienced while watching Ron run up into the stands is a feeling I've never felt before. If I saw a loved one driving into a tree and for about 3 seconds I knew they were going to collide the tree - would likely create the same feelings.

              Comment


              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                Anyway, I doubt that anyone will believe me when I say this, but if Ron can get his act together and prove it consistently, and over a long enough term for me to believe its permanent, he will redeem himself with me. It is a possibility. I've had the same roadmap for him to follow to redemption for a long time, he just isn't very successful at staying on the right roads for very long.

                So I just have 0.000000000% confidence that he can do it.
                perhaps...if u didnt use so many ifs...and speak of the need to prove this, that, and the other....and speak of redemption....and then say you have zero confidence....these are things that might lead one to believe that ur not so sincere in ur statements that he can redeem himself with u....leave off the disclaimer and it might be a bit more believable

                with all due respect...rons responsibility isnt to redeem himself with you, me or anyone else...a weak argument could be made on behalf of his teammates...however....ron simply needs to do what is asked of everyone else that is part of the organization....do everything he can do to help his team achieve the one goal it has....how does he or any other member of the team do that? by doing the things that he does well-better...and by doing everything within his power to ensure he does nothing to hinder the organization from achieving that one goal....
                this is not a season of rons redemption...this is not about ron....or mine or urs personal feelings about him and whether he might do these things or not....next season should be one of sheer excitement to see the product perform on the floor....not to see what ron does...

                whether he 'redeems' himself or not....weve got a great team...and it might get better before the season starts....to temper that enthusiasm with an underlying attitude of 'as long as artest is here, we will never succeed...or i wont believe it till i see it'....well that just seems to be about as skeptical as an approach as is possible and seems to be dwelling on one aspect and one aspect alone...RON...and ron is only one part of the puzzle....why he dominates some of u to the point he does...well.....especially when many of u claim we would be just as good without him....well hell...whats the difference then?? either way things are looking good...


                +++++++++++++


                Perhaps I'm missing something, but Foretaz seems to be fresh from a "building consensus" seminar or something. And it seems to trouble him that some of us formed our opinions on the situation years before he joined the conversation. You can call me "close minded" all you want; but I considered all those facts and alternatives a long time ago and found them to be un-compelling then and and un-compelling now.
                not sure if this was meant as a compliment, insult, or attempt at humor...my gut feeling its the latter...and for what its worth, it did make me laugh

                when u formed an opinion makes no difference to me....the fact that the opinion is cast in stone for all intents and purposes...when the facts and situations are constantly in a state of change and repair-yes i think thats highly close minded...im sorry you disagree...what ur saying is people cant change...or wont change...or refuse to change....with some this is very true...it doesnt appear to be the case for ron...not only does he exemplify the attitude of one who wants to change....but he has definitely exhibited noticeable behavior changes to those that are open-minded enuff to see them...you must admit by saying u made up ur mind along time ago-you effectively are admitting that u refuse to accept any possible change and will refute-as u do-any said perceived change....


                Here's my position, in case anyone has forgotten or hasn't seen it. I was a Pacers fan long before this chucklehead joined them, and I'll be a Pacers fan long after this chucklehead leaves them. But I was opposed to the idea of the Pacers trading for him because I knew how disruptive he had been to the Bulls. As a Pacer, I will cheer for him when he makes good plays solely because he plays for the blue-and-gold. But I do not, and will not, endorse him as a member of the Pacers. My analysis is that he's a big part of the reason why this team never reaches its potential, even though some of that potential is closely tied to just how good of a player he could become. There are other reasons the Pacers never reach thier potential as well, and its my right as a fan to point those out and criticize, whether its coaching/ strategy, personnel decisions, or bad play. Other fans may choose not to exercise thier right to criticize, but that doesn't make me 1) wrong, 2) any less of a fan, 3) any more or any less valuable to PD than members of the brigade. And when I criticize, I'm really just begging the Pacers to prove me wrong; to win a championship.
                i know u know this...but when u call people names like chucklehead...well....anyway...

                refusing to endorse him as a pacer...hmmm...not sure what that means...i know hes a pacer...cause hes got a contract...and the two parties involved havent changed that situation...

                continually refusing to accept facts that are presented is why one might get the feeling one is being a bit close-minded...just because one refuses to accept these things and print them on the computer doesnt, in any way, alter their validity....and as long as ron has a contract with the pacers, he is a pacer, whether u, i , able, peck or anyone else endorses him or not....these personal endorsements are not prequisites for being a pacer.....

                i personally dont feel like ive said its inappropriate to criticize....however there is a big difference to me between criticizing and condemning....IMO

                and forgive me for saying so....but i do find it a bit ..hmm...odd?...that a relationship is identified basically as 'prove me wrong'....not sure how that can be anything but a tumultuous relationship at best...once again IMO

                Comment


                • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck
                  I've never denied my bias. Love will cause that. However in many ways I should get more upset at Ron then most. have you ever heard of love the person but not their actions. well I love the player but not all his actions.

                  The feeling I experienced while watching Ron run up into the stands is a feeling I've never felt before. If I saw a loved one driving into a tree and for about 3 seconds I knew they were going to collide the tree - would likely create the same feelings.
                  yup...a sickening feeling that just kinda sweeps over you...you go from being on such a high because of them dismantling the pistons to this just horrifying feeling.....i know its just basketball...but the range of emotion that was encompassed in those few seconds....pretty rare...and not one id like to experience again, anytime soon

                  Comment


                  • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    Note: not intended as a personal response to Since86.

                    Would you even believe him if he told you?

                    Let's just assume, hypothetically, that all he does is confirm that what's been discussed on here is just the tip of the iceberg...

                    Wouldn't you then just say, "yeah, but those are just rumors so I don't believe you."

                    Or perhaps he says, "Forget all the stuff that Peck, Jay, bball and others mention, here is the real story..." Would you believe that or would you think its just a far-fetched figment of his imagination?

                    Or are you asking someone to name thier source? If so, I wouldn't recommend ever asking that quesiton publicly.
                    If he saw the beginning, middle, and end I would definately believe him. He stated he has knowledge of behind the scenes, without being hersey. But a partial story isn't going to cut it. Saying he walked by and saw Ron and X yelling at each other doesn't tell me why, or what happened afterwards.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                      Originally posted by Since86
                      If he saw the beginning, middle, and end I would definately believe him. He stated he has knowledge of behind the scenes, without being hersey. But a partial story isn't going to cut it. Saying he walked by and saw Ron and X yelling at each other doesn't tell me why, or what happened afterwards.
                      I don't deal in speculation. I think that is what Jay was trying to tell you without coming right out and telling you.

                      EDIT: For the most part, I don't deal in speculation. But I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference when it comes to my posts.

                      Comment


                      • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                        Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                        Note: not intended as a personal response to Since86.

                        Would you even believe him if he told you?

                        Let's just assume, hypothetically, that all he does is confirm that what's been discussed on here is just the tip of the iceberg...

                        Wouldn't you then just say, "yeah, but those are just rumors so I don't believe you."

                        Or perhaps he says, "Forget all the stuff that Peck, Jay, bball and others mention, here is the real story..." Would you believe that or would you think its just a far-fetched figment of his imagination?

                        Or are you asking someone to name thier source? If so, I wouldn't recommend ever asking that quesiton publicly.
                        u know, theres a reason that in a court of law u cannot introduce unsubstantiated facts as evidence....because if u could u simply could create fact/evidence for whatever point/argument ur trying to make...

                        now i realize this forum is anything but a court of law...

                        however, the same principles are relatively true...and to be honest, anytime i hear someone make a point that is backed up by hearsay....knowing full well it cant be and wont be substantiated for the very reasons u mention here, jay....well to me that just says that its completely unreliable...

                        speculation is one thing....its assumed that nothing is truly factual....just thoughts and what certain know facts might lead to....

                        hearsay is a totally different beast...and everytime i see backchannel this and known rumor that...i cant help but chuckle...because its highly unlikely...in fact almost impossible to believe that someone was an eyewitness to the actual whole event...

                        theres a reason theyre callled back channel stories and the like....theyre sooo subjective....realistically speaking

                        which then brings us back to hearsay....which is so unreliable, i wont even delve too deep into it.....

                        seriously....how difficult is it to get an objective, unbiased, eyewitness account of anything????

                        let alone a hearsay argument that has passed thru god knows how many hands, and been embellished and edited at each point...

                        so would i believe?? uh...no....and anyone that does...i respectfully say they enjoy living in a world that more resembles a fantasyland than the actual real world....

                        rumors, speculation, backchannel stories, hearsay, eyewitness accounts, etc...they all fall into the same category on a message board....none is more reliable or anymore valid than the other...no matter how much we would like to believe otherwise...

                        Comment


                        • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                          Originally posted by foretaz
                          let alone a hearsay argument that has passed thru god knows how many hands, and been embellished and edited at each point...
                          Believe it not, there are people who deal only in facts (when it comes to this team) who refuse to allow themselves to get caught up in rumor and innuendo. I'll leave it at that.

                          Comment


                          • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                            Originally posted by Harmonica
                            I don't deal in speculation. I think that is what Jay was trying to tell you without coming right out and telling you.

                            EDIT: For the most part, I don't deal in speculation. But I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference when it comes to my posts.
                            I'm not asking you too. You said that you have knowledge of behind the scenes problems, without them being hersey. Tell me a situation where you witnessed a confrontation with Ron, where he was in the wrong.

                            If you're going to say that you've personally seen it, then share. Don't tell us that you have, but then don't want to share for some reason.

                            I'd much rather hear a negative story from someone who was actually there than reading/watching it on ESPN.

                            Honestly I don't think I'm asking anything farfetched.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                              Originally posted by Harmonica
                              Believe it not, there are people who deal only in facts (when it comes to this team) who refuse to allow themselves to get caught up in rumor and innuendo. I'll leave it at that.
                              ru·mor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rmr)
                              n.
                              A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
                              Unverified information received from another; hearsay.

                              tr.v. ru·mored, ru·mor·ing, ru·mors
                              To spread or tell by rumor.

                              If you have personally witnessed it, which you say you have, then it wouldn't be rumoring. People don't need to hide behind actual events, especially if they're going to use those events as reasons for disliking something.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: An answer for Fortaz......

                                Originally posted by Harmonica
                                Believe it not, there are people who deal only in facts (when it comes to this team) who refuse to allow themselves to get caught up in rumor and innuendo. I'll leave it at that.
                                oh, i very much believe that...

                                the list starts like this....

                                herb
                                mel
                                donnie
                                larry
                                rick

                                i think u get my drift....the presence of those people on this board -those who truly are privvy to all the facts- is another issue....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X