Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

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

Rule #1

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

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

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

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

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

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #2

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

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

The right places to do so are:

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

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

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

Rule #3

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

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

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

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

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

Rule #4

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

Rule #5

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

An example:

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

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

Rule #6

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

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

Rule #7

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

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

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

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

Rule #8

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

Rule #9

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

Rule #10

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

Rule #11

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

A question for Skaut_Ech...

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

  • #16
    Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
    Uh........



    Wow. I'd like to take credit, but Harmonica hit it on the head. Completely Freudian. That's funny. I proofread it twice.



    Let me put it this way: In most of my responses to threads ab`out should Ron stay or go, I always argued that recently some of the championship teams had one certifiable wild card/loony to throw the other team off balance. I argued that Ron was essential to our success.

    The change has been gradual, but it was sparked by something a little odd; The Tyson fight.

    I was thinking how despite Mike making millions, getting to travel the world, have access to ways to better himself and people to emulate, he still ultimately is that same street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff. (I'm refering to him trying to break McBride's arm and biting his nipple.)

    All of a sudden I flashed to Ron.... a street kid with anger problems who doesn't think before he does stuff.

    I felt myself slowly climbing onto the fence about Ron as the season progressed. THen watching the finals, I got to thinking, there but for the grace of Ron, goes us. A Spurs/Pacers finals. The think I wanted in 1988, but where the Pacer screwed us fans hard with one of the biggest choke jobs I've ever seen a team pull in the NBA, when a title is on the line.

    Watching the Tyson fight, coupled with watching the finals finally started pushing me to the "Ron must go" side, if that makes sense to you.

    This is going to be a very freightening post for some people around here...others will say "Who's Mike?"
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

      Originally posted by Since86
      Yes.

      Ron says no one likes him because he is a "big dumb ******."

      Ron tells his opponents that he is going to eat their children.

      Ron beats on people's car hoods because they were involved in an accident.

      Ron's been convicted of raping women. EDIT: raping a woman, not women.

      Ron robs 15y/o girls, which are the neices of his management people.

      Need I continue?

      EDIT: Plus Mike, purposely, drove his car head on into a tree, not to kill himself but to know what it feels like.
      Both come from troubled upbringings.

      Both possess great talent in their respective sports.

      Both have a man/child quality about them.

      Both have a laundry list of incidents while engaging in their respective sport.

      Both have a laundry list of incidents outside of their respective sports.

      Both have a history of violence.

      Both have anger/impulse issues.

      Both have demonstrated an inability to change despite heavy penalties levied on them by their respective sports.

      Both have a history of unusual (bizarre) behavior.


      I can keep going on if you want me to.


      EDIT: Both have brought unfavorable attention to their sport.

      Both have damaged their reputations through repeated offenses.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

        Crazy, just crazy I tell you.

        Comparing Mike and Ron is utter nonsense. But at this point I say whatever. I'm tired of it all.

        Myabe I mised it, but when was Ron ever convicted of Rape. Whe did Ron spend a few years in prison. Comparing Ron and Mike off the curt or out of the ring is total BS. Has Ron ever said he wants to eat children

        I could go on.

        But why bother.

        Let's use a wide brush and paint everyone who has ever had some problems with the Tyson brush.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

          Originally posted by Harmonica

          I can keep going on if you want me to.

          But wouldn't that require comprehension skills on the part of a certain reader?





          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            Crazy, just crazy I tell you.

            Comparing Mike and Ron is utter nonsense. But at this point I say whatever. I'm tired of it all.
            The similarities are there, albeit extreme. And that wasn't his point. It was about people like Mike and Ron and their ability to change.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              Comparing Mike and Ron is utter nonsense. But at this point I say whatever. I'm tired of it all.
              Oh come on, Unclebuck, piling it on and using hyperbole are F-U-N FUN!

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                Originally posted by Harmonica
                Both come from troubled upbringings.

                Both possess great talent in their respective sports.

                Both have a man/child quality about them.

                Both have a laundry list of incidents while engaging in their respective sport.

                Both have a laundry list of incidents outside of their respective sports.

                Both have a history of violence.

                Both have anger/impulse issues.

                Both have demonstrated an inability to change despite heavy penalties levied on them by their respective sports.

                Both have a history of unusual (bizarre) behavior.


                I can keep going on if you want me to.

                So because they both inhabit same individual characteristics, Ron is going to turn out like Mike? That's down right absurd. How many people in this world have the same characteristics, then how many Mike Tysons are there?

                Here's a timeline of events from ESPN. (I've taken out the actual boxing events, unless there was a problem)
                http://espn.go.com/boxing/news/2002/0129/1319772.html

                1978 -- Arrested for purse snatching as a 12-year-old in Brooklyn and sent to Tryon School for Boys.

                1982 -- Expelled from Catskill High School for a series of transgressions.

                June 17, 1988 -- Givens and her family go public with tales of beatings by Tyson.

                Aug. 23, 1988 -- Breaks a bone in his right hand in a 4 a.m. street brawl with professional fighter Mitch Green in Harlem.

                Sept. 4, 1988 -- Tyson is knocked unconscious after driving his BMW into a tree. Three days later, the New York Daily News reports the accident was a "suicide attempt" caused by a "chemical imbalance" that made him violent and irrational.

                Sept. 30, 1988 -- Givens says in a nationally televised interview that Tyson is a manic-depressive and that she is afraid of him. Tyson sits meekly next to her.

                Dec. 12, 1988 -- Sandra Miller of New York sues Tyson for allegedly grabbing her, propositioning her and insulting her at a nightclub. A jury later finds Tyson guilty of battery, fining him only $100.

                Dec. 15, 1988 -- Lori Davis of New York sues Tyson for allegedly grabbing her buttocks while she was dancing at the same nightclub on the same night as the incident with Miller.

                April 9, 1989 -- Accused of striking a parking attendant three times with an open hand outside a Los Angeles nightclub after the attendant asked Tyson to move his Mercedes--Benz out of a spot reserved for the club's owner. The charges are later dropped due to lack of witness cooperation.

                Nov. 1, 1990 -- A New York City civil jury finds Tyson committed battery in the Sandra Miller case, but Miller is awarded just $100 in damages because the jury decides Tyson's behavior was "not outrageous."

                July 18, 1991 -- Tyson meets Desiree Washington, a Miss Black America contestant, at a pageant rehearsal. They go to the boxer's hotel room in the early morning hours.

                July 22, 1991 -- Washington files a complaint with police accusing Tyson of rape.

                May 8, 1992 -- Tyson is found guilty of threatening a guard and disorderly conduct in prison, adding 15 days to his sentence.

                June 28, 1997 -- Tyson is disqualified after the third round of his rematch with Holyfield after he bites Holyfield twice, once on each ear. Tyson claims he was retaliating for a head butt inflicted by Holyfield that opened up a gash above his right eye. Referee Mills Lane ruled the butt was accidental.

                Oct. 16, 1997 -- Ordered to pay boxer Mitch Green $ 45,000 even though a jury ruled the former heavyweight champion was provoked into a Harlem street fight in 1988.

                Oct. 29, 1997 -- Broke a rib and punctured a lung on his right side when his motorcycle skidded off a Connecticut highway after hitting a patch of sand.

                March 9, 1998 -- Sherry Cole and Chevelle Butts filed a $22 million lawsuit against Tyson claiming he verbally and physically abused them March 1 at a Washington bistro them at a restaurant after his sexual advances toward one of them were spurned.

                July 29, 1998 -- Appeared before the New Jersey Athletic Control Board to get a boxing license to resume his career. Tyson first choked back tears as he apologized for biting Evander Holyfield's ears. At the end of his 35-minute appearance, however, Tyson cursed in front of regulators after being continually questioned about biting Holyfield.

                Aug. 31, 1998 -- Was involved in a minor auto accident in Gaithersburg, Md., and had to be restrained by bodyguards from fighting the driver of the other car.

                Sept. 2, 1998 -- Richard Hardick filed an assault charge against Tyson. Hardick says he was kicked in the groin by Tyson after his car rear-ended a Mercedes driven by Tyson's wife, Monica, on Aug. 31.

                Sept. 3, 1998 -- Abmielec Saucedo filed a criminal assault against Tyson claiming Tyson punched him in the face as Saucedo talked with another driver following the accident of Aug. 31.

                Dec. 1, 1998 -- Tyson pleads no contest to misdemeanor assault for kicking and punching two motorists involved in the Aug. 31 auto accident in Maryland.

                Jan. 16, 1999 -- Tyson knocked out Francois Botha in the fifth round. Tyson admitted to trying to break Botha's arm during the fight

                Feb. 5, 1999 -- Tyson was sentenced to two concurrent two-year sentences for assaulting two motorists after a traffic accident last summer. Judge Stephen Johnson suspended all but one year of jail time. Tyson was also fined $5,000 and sentenced to two years' probation after his release from jail. The decision could lead to more jail time for violating parole in Indiana.

                Feb. 20, 1999 -- Tyson was put in an isolation cell after a disturbance Saturday night at the Montgomery County Detention Center. Several TV stations in Washington reported that Tyson became upset, either in his cell or a break room, and threw a television set. The set narrowly missed jail guards, and there were no injuries. It was later reported that Tyson was taken off anti-depressants two days previous to this incident.

                October 24, 1999 -- vs. Orlin Norris Tyson hit Norris after the bell in the 1st round and the fight was declared a no contest

                Feb 8, 2000 -- Former heavyweight champion Mike Tyson reached a settlement Monday with two women who alleged the boxer assaulted them at a restaurant in the nation's capital, The Washington Post reported in its Tuesday and Chevelle Butts, both 33, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt. They said they were in the Au Pied de Cochon restaurant in the city's Georgetown neighborhood on March, 1, 1998, when Tyson grabbed Cole and requested a sexual relationship. They alleged Tyson, who served time in an Indiana prison for a rape conviction, swore at Butts after learning she was a correctional officer. In papers filed by Tyson's lawyers, six witnesses said the boxer was verbally harassed by the women and was not abusive. Cole and Butts were seeking a total of $7.5 million in damages. Lawyers for both sides said they agreed to keep terms of the settlement confidential.

                May 19, 2000 -- American boxer Mike Tyson's lawyer said that his client is determined to clear his name following allegations that the boxer hit a stripper in a Las Vegas nightclub. The dancer, Victoria Bianco, has filed a report on the alleged incident with local police who are now investigating her claim, according to the BBC reports on Friday. Bianco claims the former world heavyweight champion punched her in the chest and hurled expletives at her in a club where she was working as a topless dancer. Police were called to the scene, but after interviewing witnesses, including Tyson himself, they decided not to press charges.

                June 27, 2000 -- A former topless dancer is seeking unspecified damages from heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson in connection with a May incident in which she says the boxer struck her while she was at work. In a lawsuit filed Friday, Victoria Bianco said Tyson struck her in the chest without provocation at Cheetah's, a topless club near downtown Las Vegas. The lawsuit has not been brought to court yet (as of Jan. 23, 2002).

                June 24, 2000 -- vs. Lou Savarese. Tyson knocked the referee down in order to keep punching Savarese after the bout was stopped.

                July 29, 2001 -- Heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson continued preparations for his next fight Sunday in Phoenix while authorities in California continued investigating an allegation that he sexually assaulted Arlene Moorman, 50, at his rented home in the small mountain town of Big Bear City. Tyson, a former world champion who served three years in prison for a 1992 rape, has not been charged in the alleged incident, although San Bernardino County sheriff's investigators have indicated they wanted to question the boxer in the near future.

                Aug. 18, 2001 -- California prosecutors have decided not to press charges against boxer Mike Tyson in connection with an alleged sexual assault on Arlene Moorman near Big Bear Lake.

                Dec. 18, 2001 -- Police were today investigating claims that Mike Tyson assaulted an ex--boxer outside a New York nightclub. Retired heavyweight Mitchell Rose has filed a complaint, claiming Tyson attacked him after he made a joke about the former champion's entourage of women. Police in New York are investigating the claims but have not yet interviewed Tyson, a convicted rapist, or pressed any charges following the alleged incident early on Sunday morning.

                Jan. 2, 2002 -- Mike Tyson checked out of a Havana hotel early Wednesday, a day after witnesses said he tossed glass Christmas ornaments at journalists trying to interview him. There were no reports of injuries, arrests or serious damage following the Tuesday evening dispute. The former heavyweight champion reportedly was headed to the airport for a flight on Air Jamaica after checking out at dawn, workers at the Hotel Melia Habana said.

                Jan. 22, 2002 -- Tyson and Lennox Lewis come to blows during their scheduled TV press conference hyping their April 6th meeting. It was alleged that Tyson bit Lennox's leg during the melee.

                Jan. 22, 20002 -- Police in Las Vegas said that they found evidence supporting a woman's claim she was raped by Tyson. The case is with the local district attorney's office, which will decide over the next weeks whether to charge Tyson.






                May have some of the same characteristics, but Mike is so far off the spectrum it's laughable.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                  So Harmonica, I think I've seen you on both sides of the "Can Ron change?" discussion lately.

                  Or am I misreading?
                  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


                  • #24
                    Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                    Originally posted by Harmonica
                    The similarities are there, albeit extreme. And that wasn't his point. It was about people like Mike and Ron's ability to change.
                    Thank you! Sheesh!!

                    Folks, are you not getting it. I wasn't making a comparision to put down Ron, but to show how maybe people can't change. :shakehead
                    Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                      Originally posted by Harmonica
                      The similarities are there, albeit extreme. And that wasn't his point. It was about people like Mike and Ron and their ability to change.

                      So because Mike didn't change, neither will Ron?

                      Let's just lock up every single person with those characteristics then. Mike didn't change, therefore no one that has any of his qualities can.

                      EDIT:

                      There's a big difference with Ron and Mike. Mike would apologize, and then if he was being asked about the event more he would snap again. Ron not only apologizes, but doesn't make the same mistakes.

                      I'm completely fine with the reason of not wanting Ron on the team because of past transgressions, even though I don't agree with them. But comparing people, especially to Iron Mike, isn't fair.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                        Originally posted by Since86
                        May have some of the same characteristics, but Mike is so far off the spectrum it's laughable.
                        Some people have to stick with their black and white, everything goes in its own neat little box view of the world.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                          And for the record, I've been in the "dark side" camp concerning Artest for over a year now, and I think this analogy beyond surface comparison is absurd.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
                            So Harmonica, I think I've seen you on both sides of the "Can Ron change?" discussion lately.

                            Or am I misreading?
                            No, you're not. My feelings about Ron (as a player—I hate that I have to qualify that because of all the people who get caught up with semantics here) have been all over the place.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                              Originally posted by Hicks
                              Some people have to stick with their black and white, everything goes in its own neat little box view of the world.
                              That's me alright. Please note the irony in your statement.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: A question for Skaut_Ech...

                                Originally posted by Skaut_Ech
                                Thank you! Sheesh!!

                                Folks, are you not getting it. I wasn't making a comparision to put down Ron, but to show how maybe people can't change. :shakehead
                                And that's perfectly valid. It's just that things quickly came across (not really from you) that this was being taken much further than that, hence some of our responses.

                                If that's all that was meant, no harm done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X