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

Giving Away Jackson

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

  • #16
    Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post


    What empty seats look like? Really? So you are telling me that fans hate Jack so much that they will not support or come watch Granger and Harrington? Yeah, get back to me on that.
    I think that is what he's telling you and I think he might be right.

    This isn't a normal situation and it's been building. Sjax had already lost the fans to the point many wondered how the team could bring him back and what they could do to rehab his image. Well, with his image being on life support and part of the Pacers' new marketing campaign, he blew the whole thing up. He (and his compadres) made the campaign into a joke. So much so that they had to pull it because the whole campaign looked blatantly silly.

    It's turned into a caustic, cancerous situation. Likely, a vicious cycle. Someone will tell me that winning cures all, but it's hard to imagine much winning with a player creating this many distractions (thru his own actions AND thru the fans' actions now). It's not like Sjax is that good that he can make the fans forget and rise above it all. His game is filled with bad decisions and it's hard to see fans accepting the bad with the good at this point.

    Things are too raw right now and it has the potential to get ugly.

    -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


    • #17
      Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

      Originally posted by Bball View Post
      Things are too raw right now and it has the potential to get ugly.

      -Bball
      Agreed. And yet, I can't imagine a team trading for Jack while the felony charge is still outstanding. How long before the whole thing goes to trial? A year?
      This space for rent.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

        Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
        At this point, I'd have no problem releasing Jackson.

        I realize he's a decent player, and I realize he's a good guy, but as with the Artest experiement, I'm ready for the Stephen Jackson chapter to end......
        No matter how much success Larry Bird attains in Indiana he'll never top that first command to fire Thomas. -Peter Vecsey. NY Post 12/4/07

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

          Originally posted by Anthem View Post
          Agreed. And yet, I can't imagine a team trading for Jack while the felony charge is still outstanding. How long before the whole thing goes to trial? A year?
          It's fairly common to waive your right to a speedy trial so it could drag on. OTOH, if he doesn't waive his right to a speedy trial I was thinking that the state had 90 days to bring it to trial. I could be wrong.

          But the questions probably are: "What is the prosecutor offering?" "What is Sjax willing to accept?" and "What does Michigan have to say about all this in regards to probation?"

          The probation question probably makes this a bit stickier than it otherwise would be to plea bargain.

          I'm not sure I'd look for any movement until after the elections.

          -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


          • #20
            Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

            Originally posted by Destined4Greatness View Post
            If we are going to start talking about Promises Bird has to keep lets not forget the "If JO can't handle the leadership role this year we will have to find somebody else" and please if Fans got to dictate who a team kept and got rid of the Pacers would have drafted Alford and remained a pathetic excuse for a pro team.
            JO couldn't handle it. That's why we brought in Al and Armstrong.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              I agree. Just listen to every NBA and NFL draft EVER. Fans screw up way more often than any decent GM or owner, they just don't hold themselves accountable.

              Most of the fans booing Jack right now were ripping on the AJ for Armstrong trade too...now they look like idiots (IMO) with what throw-ins Powell and Marshall have brought to camp.
              I think you are giving TPTB too much credit. They are supposed to be professionals and certainly have more information than the average fan.

              However, look objectively at performance and consider where this team is compared to 6 years ago. To be sure, there have been more mistakes than correct decisions during that time period. Otherwise, we would not be in the mess we are now. If this were a normal company, some of the executives would be getting cut loose.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                I think that is what he's telling you and I think he might be right.

                This isn't a normal situation and it's been building. Sjax had already lost the fans to the point many wondered how the team could bring him back and what they could do to rehab his image. Well, with his image being on life support and part of the Pacers' new marketing campaign, he blew the whole thing up. He (and his compadres) made the campaign into a joke. So much so that they had to pull it because the whole campaign looked blatantly silly.

                It's turned into a caustic, cancerous situation. Likely, a vicious cycle. Someone will tell me that winning cures all, but it's hard to imagine much winning with a player creating this many distractions (thru his own actions AND thru the fans' actions now). It's not like Sjax is that good that he can make the fans forget and rise above it all. His game is filled with bad decisions and it's hard to see fans accepting the bad with the good at this point.

                Things are too raw right now and it has the potential to get ugly.

                -Bball

                Exactly. In fact many fans didn't bother to show up for last seasons playoffs. The ones that did got their point across by booing Jackson after every bad decision he made. Jackson is the one guy on this team that the majority of the fans want gone. Second would be Tinsley, but I think the majority of the fans can deal with him being on the team. It's not like Tinsley makes a lot of bad decisions, he just has missed a lot of time due to injuries and illnesses.

                They need SJax to go in order to eliminate the cloud over the team right now.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: On Jackson; The Fans Have Spoken

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                  Most of the fans booing Jack right now were ripping on the AJ for Armstrong trade too...now they look like idiots (IMO) with what throw-ins Powell and Marshall have brought to camp.
                  So you're ready to declare victory on that one? As much as Powell and Marshall have brought to camp, they still haven't actually brought anything to a real game. I like their energy and some of their skills, but jeez, right now all I see is two guys that in a few years might crack our playoff rotation.

                  Meanwhile our PG spot is a mess and the guy that bailed us out the last few years is in Texas.

                  Don't know if I agree with you on this man. At the very least, you'll have to admit that it's a "we'll see" situation.

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                  What empty seats look like? Really? So you are telling me that fans hate Jack so much that they will not support or come watch Granger and Harrington? Yeah, get back to me on that.
                  Remember, a lot of people don't go to games just 'cause its fun to watch. Some take their kids, for example, and right now I'm sure families are staying home because they don't want their kids seeing some of these guys as role models. Corporate types, meanwhile, won't want their company associated with the stereotypes the Pacers are facing. I don't necessarily want to skewer Jackson myself, but there's a lot of negativity out there right now. I think there will be a hit in attendance unless Jax is moved.
                  2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Giving Away Jackson

                    We are discussing preseason ticket sales here, people. I for one never go to preseason games. They cost the same as regular season games and I will not pay money to see Sean Lampley play.

                    People still pay for tickets in Philly when the Sixers are winning, and AI is not exactly role model material. So, does everyone agree that attendance would go UP if the team traded for a bunch of "milk drinkers" with marginal talent? Because I disagree with you there. Winning sells tickets. People stayed away last year because the team was bad. Remember, Atlanta and Charlotte have a lot of good character guys that are fun to watch but the seats are empty. Winning solves all problems.
                    Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
                    http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Giving Away Jackson

                      Here's hoping Artest vouches and convinces Kings management to take Jackson and maybe we could package him in a trade that sends us Kevin Martin or Garcia in return. But of course, why would the Kings want to reunite the main culprits of one of the most disgusting sports incident in history? I really like that Martin kid though. And we need a shooter.
                      http://Twitter.com/dRealSource

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Giving Away Jackson

                        Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                        People still pay for tickets in Philly when the Sixers are winning, and AI is not exactly role model material.
                        That's Philadelphia. This is Indy. Does anybody think there's no difference?


                        Originally posted by FrenchConnection
                        So, does everyone agree that attendance would go UP if the team traded for a bunch of "milk drinkers" with marginal talent?
                        Why can't we discuss a team of young, vigorous, serious athletes with impeccable private lives who are competitive? Such players exist, don't they? We should trade for them. The choice is not between talented thugs and inept "milk drinkers." What we have on our team is a thug of modest talent, and that is a combination no one one with their eyes open should defend.

                        As far as your premise that winning sells tickets, you're probably right in at least 5 cases out of 10. But I'm not that way myself. I'm sitting here with my hand on my wallet three blocks from Conseco, waiting for the news that convinces me the Pacers have purged the problem.
                        And I won't be here to see the day
                        It all dries up and blows away
                        I'd hang around just to see
                        But they never had much use for me
                        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Giving Away Jackson

                          Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                          We are discussing preseason ticket sales here, people. I for one never go to preseason games. They cost the same as regular season games and I will not pay money to see Sean Lampley play.

                          People still pay for tickets in Philly when the Sixers are winning, and AI is not exactly role model material. So, does everyone agree that attendance would go UP if the team traded for a bunch of "milk drinkers" with marginal talent? Because I disagree with you there. Winning sells tickets. People stayed away last year because the team was bad. Remember, Atlanta and Charlotte have a lot of good character guys that are fun to watch but the seats are empty. Winning solves all problems.
                          Winning would solve problems, but a team of talented thugs is not the answer...if it were, Portland would have 5 championships in the last 10 years.

                          With all due respect, I think the Pacers can do better than that...and have done better in the past. I would rather watch bad players than marginally good players who act like some of our players. At least we would have some hope to rebuild the franchise with lottery picks. Instead, we are locked into long term contracts with mediocre players who embarrass the franchise.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Giving Away Jackson

                            Originally posted by denyfizle View Post
                            Here's hoping Artest vouches and convinces Kings management to take Jackson and maybe we could package him in a trade that sends us Kevin Martin or Garcia in return. But of course, why would the Kings want to reunite the main culprits of one of the most disgusting sports incident in history? I really like that Martin kid though. And we need a shooter.
                            Sac is interested in moving Miller. How about Jack and Foster for Miller plus filler? They love Artest in Sac. Why not a little more? Also, Foster loves Ron Ron.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Giving Away Jackson

                              I hate the use of the word "Thug". I think it's a disgusting way to describe a person and I don't feel it's a fair description of Jackson in any way, shape or form. It's a very offending word.

                              Originally posted by FrenchConnection[/quote
                              We are discussing preseason ticket sales here, people. I for one never go to preseason games. They cost the same as regular season games and I will not pay money to see Sean Lampley play.

                              People still pay for tickets in Philly when the Sixers are winning, and AI is not exactly role model material. So, does everyone agree that attendance would go UP if the team traded for a bunch of "milk drinkers" with marginal talent? Because I disagree with you there. Winning sells tickets. People stayed away last year because the team was bad. Remember, Atlanta and Charlotte have a lot of good character guys that are fun to watch but the seats are empty. Winning solves all problems.
                              Sure winning solves all problems in most cases, but this situation is different. We could go 10-0 to start the season and it probably wouldn't lead to sell outs. Fans would slowly start filling seats, but it would take a long time. We'd likely have to maintain the best record in the Eastern Conference through at least the All-Star break with Jackson on our roster in order to prove anything to the fans. That's approximately 22 home games that we have to deal with below average attendance numbers to try to prove something to the fans. Twenty-two games of low ticket sales. Twenty-two games of low concession sales. Twenty-two games of below average parking income for the downtown area. All because we're reluctant to remove a guy that fans obviously don't like off our roster.

                              I'm not going to bother going into the mathematic equations to show exactly how much money they're losing out on by keeping this guy around. This isn't about preseason ticket sales. They were booing him in last years PLAYOFFS! I WAS THERE! We weren't the best team in the league, but we were in the playoffs for cryin out loud! Yet, we still couldn't fill the seats even though we had a good chance at advancing to the second round. It's obvious that in our case, winning didn't solve a damn thing.

                              Getting Jackson off the roster will lighten the mood among the fans and recapture interest in the team. At the very least if they can put a trouble free, fun to watch team on the floor that is giving their every effort to win, yet falls a bit short, I can be satisfied with the fact that we're moving in a positive direction and trying to put a team together that can be a strong competitor in the upcoming years. Right now, there's one move holding them back from letting the sun shine through the cloud.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Giving Away Jackson

                                Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
                                I hate the use of the word "Thug". I think it's a disgusting way to describe a person and I don't feel it's a fair description of Jackson in any way, shape or form. It's a very offending word.
                                Noun1.thug - an aggressive and violent young criminal hood, hoodlum, punk, strong-armer, toughie, goon, tough
                                criminal, crook, felon, malefactor, outlaw - someone who has committed (or been legally convicted of) a crime


                                Sounds like the description fits to me. I'm sorry if it is an offensive word for you, but when someone's actions define who they are, they ought to be prepared to be labeled as such. This isn't directed AT you, but more TO you. While you are offended by the use of the word, I'm offended by the actions of the individual that causes him to be referred to that way. I've also grown tired of people being offended and upset by the use of that word. It gets thrown around alot when it isn't really needed, but not in this case.

                                I'm fine with the word 'thug' being used to describe him. He may be all nicey-nice in front of the camera or most of the time. That is all well and good.

                                It's how his demeanor is when he is confronted with conflict or an undesireable set of circumstances that concern me. In that type of situation, I've seen no indication, EVER, that he has the ability to be anything but a thug.

                                Again, sorry if this post offends you Ev, but I had to state my two cents about how fair or unfair it is to label someone according to their actions.



                                RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X