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......

    This is preposterous.

    I posted links to both Peck's discussion thread and your re-post of Kravitz's "calling-out" article IN THIS THREAD. Post #15.

    Do we have a smiley for exasperated? I guess this have to do:
    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 Bball
      Of course, he didn't have migraines, a story nobody believed in the first place. A teammate shared the truth that day with The Star, saying, "He had some problems at home."


      Even if you make the case that Detroit's Richard Hamilton dropped an elbow into Artest's gut to instigate the act, in the end, a player cannot retaliate with a forearm shiver that results in a flagrant foul -- and, for all intents and purposes, ends the Eastern Conference finals.

      That quote holds some major weight. There's a whole lot of context that goes with it. I think we'd all agree that a quote taken out of context can be completely misleading of what was actually said.

      I don't always have the best memory, but I certainly dont recall a "forearm shiver." I remember the highlite being of Ron lifting his arms and Rip doing a mighty fine selling job. If he can't even get what he sees right, I think I'm fully within my rights to question Bob's agenda.
      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

      Comment


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

        [QUOTE=Harmonica]Like I said, I've been very forthright with those who have had the courtesy to ask me privately. Beyond that, I tend to state things matter-of-factly. You can choose to believe me or not, that's up to you—and I'll adopt the foretaz stance here—I really don't care.[/QUOTE

        Sorry, but I have to admit you rub me the wrong way almost to the point of dislike, and you are the only one on here who does, and this is why. You write with authority, meaning you make statements as fact that can't be proven, but then you don't divulge your authority to do so.

        That's a cop out on a message board. That's a cop out at any time!

        I would think you would want people to believe you, but you don't give a reason why we should believe you. Saying 'trust me' on the Internet doesn't work.

        If you would just leave it at that I could accept it. Instead you belabor a point you won't prove like you have to have the last word.

        And instead of continuing an argument, wouldn't it be a courtesy on your part to message the other guy privately? Does the courtesy only have to extend one way?

        It can't be because you are to busy because you are never to busy to reply to a post. [grin]

        I don't know . . . if you just said, "My source is a friend that works in the Pacer's offices, or I work in the Pacer's Public relations department." Okay, I could live with it, you wouldn't have to say more. Your going to know some stuff that's not generally known and I'm going to pay you more than the usual attention just because you could be right.

        As is, and as I said, the way you post just rubs me the wrong way.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Jay@Section204
          This is preposterous.

          I posted links to both Peck's discussion thread and your re-post of Kravitz's "calling-out" article IN THIS THREAD. Post #15.

          Do we have a smiley for exasperated? I guess this have to do:
          I thought I was chasing my tail... now I know I was. We need a 'dog chasing his tail' smilie.

          *Speaking of dogs... mine needs fed so I better get to dipping the Alpo before there's trouble!

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Bball
            Well, unless I've been misreading your posts, you refuse to debate or even consider purported inside info because you'd rather attack the messenger. I thought your reasonings were sounding rather close-minded (IE: -what I seem to be hearing from you- "It (aledged inside info) can't be true because no way would anyone here have that type of info... Period! Not only that but it disagrees with my thoughts on the subject so therefore the messenger is a liar or troll").


            -Bball
            ummmmm.....no no no no no...i know ive put up a bunch of stuff lately...but none that is remotely close to what ur saying here....

            lemme see if i can make this clear...i think i understand now....

            i thought i made it clear that not only do i believe the things that are being said that ron has done-and u can come up with a whole laundry list...fake injuries, fake migraines, missing planes, getting into it with jo, anything really...

            i clearly acknowledge that he has a behavior history that is clearly bad and unacceptable as well as destructive to the teams ultimate goal...

            have i not made this clear??? i thought i had....

            now...why people want to continue to remind everyone that ron did these things or how bad these things are- i dont really know...thats more what i wonder about....because my reply is....'yea, i know' and some of them were really bad...ur right' and all of it is unacceptable....i dunno....are u somehow upset that because he has had these behavior problems, that are caused by deep seated emotional issues that directly affect his response mechanisms, i dont hate him??? i dunno

            a totally separate issue to me...one i really didnt realize had gotten intertwined is the 'purported insider info'

            reread my comments regarding those and let those stand alone for themself...and they go for any member of the pacers as well as the organization or probably anyone telling me supposed secrets about unclebucks sex life.....i feel the same about all of them...and they are no way related to my feelings on ron...nor his activities...i just feel rons behavior problems have been clearly documented over the years....and even if one was debated to have happened or not happened wouldnt change the situation in the least....hes got a problem....period...whether hes done 98 things or 99...

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Since86
              That quote holds some major weight. There's a whole lot of context that goes with it. I think we'd all agree that a quote taken out of context can be completely misleading of what was actually said.

              I don't always have the best memory, but I certainly dont recall a "forearm shiver." I remember the highlite being of Ron lifting his arms and Rip doing a mighty fine selling job. If he can't even get what he sees right, I think I'm fully within my rights to question Bob's agenda.

              Keep in mind that a lot of us knew had heard this from numerous sources before it was published. Even UncleBuck, who as far as I know is Ron's biggest fan, said in that thread that Kravitz didn't tell him anything he didn't already know. So for us, this was just public confirmation of what we "suspected" to be the truth.

              But I'll grant you that timing is everything and if Kravitz's article was the first you'd heard of this, you might not be inclined to believe him.
              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 Jay@Section204
                Keep in mind that a lot of us knew had heard this from numerous sources before it was published. Even UncleBuck, who as far as I know is Ron's biggest fan, said in that thread that Kravitz didn't tell him anything he didn't already know. So for us, this was just public confirmation of what we "suspected" to be the truth.

                But I'll grant you that timing is everything and if Kravitz's article was the first you'd heard of this, you might not be inclined to believe him.

                Unless its proven that brass came up with/or knowingly went along, or had medical records to prove he didn't, there's no way sources can be proven.

                Sources get their info from other sources, who get there's from other sources, like fore was saying earlier. If you want to believe hand me down information, go right ahead. But I came from a small school where everyone thinks they know everyone's business. "Sources" told me almost weekly that I was bout to be a daddy, which was news to me and my girlfriend.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


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

                  I have always been taught to "Worry about things you can control and do not worry about things you cannot control".

                  If I find out that Ron is an axe murderer, Jo is a drug addict, Tinsley is a habitual liar, Fred gambles, Jackson has three wives and so on, what am I going to do about it ?

                  Nothing!!! Because I have zero control over these people and zero control over the Pacer organization.

                  Am I a pacer supporter? Absolutely and probably longer than 95% of the people on the board. I will be a Pacer supporter forever, even if Ron and Bender plays next year or if neither ever puts on a Pacer uniform.

                  I can sit here and discuss the merits of what is right and wrong with the Pacers but I can not change a thing and the Pacer management really does not care what I think.

                  I have participated in and coached sports since I was 8 years old and I have zero dillusions that I am an NBA Coach or General Manager. I really feel there are people on this forum that believe they are better and more knowledgable than those in power in the Pacer Organization.

                  It is great to express your opinions and one should but how many times must someone say they do not like something or someone before it becomes repetative and monotonous.

                  I think it is great for someone to have the availability of "inside information" but if you cannot use it , make money from it, or in some way utilize it, what good is it other than self-satisfaction.

                  I enjoy this forum because there are volumes of useful information about the Pacers. There are also volumes of useless verbage and personal opinions.

                  I just really wish some of the posters would not take exception to everything that is not in agreement with their stand on the Pacers and not try to change everyone to their way of thinking.

                  Just remember, it is only your opinion and until you can control something, you cannot change it.

                  Just relax and keep your blood pressure down.

                  I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                    Keep in mind that a lot of us knew had heard this from numerous sources before it was published. Even UncleBuck, who as far as I know is Ron's biggest fan, said in that thread that Kravitz didn't tell him anything he didn't already know. So for us, this was just public confirmation of what we "suspected" to be the truth.

                    But I'll grant you that timing is everything and if Kravitz's article was the first you'd heard of this, you might not be inclined to believe him.
                    Jay,
                    I've come to believe Artest could go live on the RTV 6 news and read an apology for lying about experiencing migraines and some would say he was forced to read what was on the paper and if it was true he'd need no notes.

                    He could take the mic at Conseco and say it and people would say he was joking and poking fun at all the 'haters'.

                    He could stand on top of the Soldier and Sailors monument and scream it and some would say you can't pay attention to what Artest says, just his play on the court where he is a complete player and his fierce competitiveness knows no boundaries.

                    Of course if he would come here on the forum and say it he would be accused of being a fraud, asked for proof of he was (which of course nothing would satisfy some), and labeled a troll.

                    IOW.... :


                    -Bball
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


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

                      Something I don't understand.

                      And let me say this before I ask my question. I stayed out of the Artest debate for weeks and didn't even read the posts about Artest because there were too many people on both sides of the argument that didn't have their facts straight. But the arguments continued and I can see what both sides are saying.

                      My question is this. Why are people upset with Artest because he had problems at home?

                      [Bob Kravitz wrote, The most glaring problems, though, emerged in the hours before Game 6 in Detroit.

                      Artest missed practice the day before Game 6. He missed the team's charter flight to Detroit later that evening. He then missed a shoot-around before the biggest game of the season.

                      At the time, the Pacers chose to cover up for Artest -- or tell a baldfaced lie, if you want to be technical. They said he was suffering from migraines. Maybe they just got used to covering for Artest, or, perhaps, they were hoping to maintain his trade value, which will never be higher than it is now.

                      Of course, he didn't have migraines, a story nobody believed in the first place. A teammate shared the truth that day with The Star, saying, "He had some problems at home."]

                      Now the way I read this is Artest missed practice, the team's charter, and a shoot around because he had problems at home. The team then said he had migraines. Who's at fault here?

                      Why are people mad at Artest because he had problems at home? Maybe some people thought his problems inconsequential, but we all know the one thing that clearly means more to Artest than basketball is his family.

                      I thought at the time kravitz wrote the article he was just trying to cause trouble and I still think so.

                      I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill by both sides of this argument. You have agitators on both sides that have just polarized the argument.

                      Really I think both sides should just keep their mouths shut about Artest because everyone has made up their mind and it's useless to continue a debate that fustrates people when none of the debaters have a say in the outcome.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Will Galen
                        Something I don't understand.

                        And let me say this before I ask my question. I stayed out of the Artest debate and didn't even read the first 47 posts because there were too many people on both sides of the argument that didn't have their facts straight.

                        My question is this. Why are people upset with Artest because he had problems at home?

                        bob kravitz wrote, The most glaring problems, though, emerged in the hours before Game 6 in Detroit.

                        [Artest missed practice the day before Game 6. He missed the team's charter flight to Detroit later that evening. He then missed a shoot-around before the biggest game of the season.

                        At the time, the Pacers chose to cover up for Artest -- or tell a baldfaced lie, if you want to be technical. They said he was suffering from migraines. Maybe they just got used to covering for Artest, or, perhaps, they were hoping to maintain his trade value, which will never be higher than it is now.

                        Of course, he didn't have migraines, a story nobody believed in the first place. A teammate shared the truth that day with The Star, saying, "He had some problems at home."]

                        Now the way I read this is Artest missed practice, the team's charter, and a shoot around because he had problems at home. The team then said he had migraines. Who's at fault here?

                        Why are people mad at Artest because he had problems at home? Maybe some people thought his problems inconsequential, but we all know the one thing that clearly means more to Artest than basketball is his family.

                        I thought at the time kravitz wrote the article he was just trying to cause trouble and I still think so.

                        I think a mountain has been made out of a molehill by both sides of this argument. You have agitators on both sides that have just polarized the argument.

                        Really I think both sides should just keep their mouths shut about Artest because everyone has made up their mind and it's useless to continue a debate that fustrates people when none of the debaters have a say in the outcome.

                        I will now shut my mouth.
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Since86
                          I completely understand what you were trying to do, but it was still a bad tatic.
                          Tatic? I'm assuming you meant tacky, or something like it in this post. If not, you can just ignore it.

                          I agree with you, it was tacky, but no more so than the original posting of the definitions. We all speak English here, there's no need to insult someone's intelligence with random definitions.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Will Galen
                            And instead of continuing an argument, wouldn't it be a courtesy on your part to message the other guy privately? Does the courtesy only have to extend one way?
                            I was going to respond to the rest of your insipid post, but decided to let much of what you said go. But this stood out. If you recall, during our tiresome debates about who actually called the shots with the Pacers—Bird or Walsh—I did in fact PM you. You were pretty dismissive, so I didn't feel compelled to continue the conversation. That's right, I contacted you. Now, I don't come right out to anyone and tell them how I know what I know. For several reasons, which should be obvious to you. And while in most instances people have PM'd me about my "source," I have indeed PM'd a couple of people here to continue a conversation privately, which invaribly results in me telling them.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by SoupIsGood
                              Tatic? I'm assuming you meant tacky, or something like it in this post. If not, you can just ignore it.

                              I agree with you, it was tacky, but no more so than the original posting of the definitions. We all speak English here, there's no need to insult someone's intelligence with random definitions.

                              No, I meant tatic. The way you chose to tell us that posting definitions annoyed you, was a bad tatic.

                              He said he wasn't going to speculate, or contribute to rumoring. I was simply showing him that if he was indeed an eye witness, it was a rumor because it was fact. If I'm not using a word correctly, then by all means correct me with a definition.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


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

                                [whisper]Tatic is not a word[/whisper]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X