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

So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

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

  • #31
    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

    Originally posted by travmil View Post
    You're wrong. This will never be forgotten by Colts fans or any other NFL fans for that matter. The Tom Brady Pats will always be linked to the spygate cheating scandal. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it's true. Nobody will ever forget.
    I disagree. Especially once we win another SB.

    Originally posted by Gyron View Post
    I think to Pat's fans, this will all be a distant memory. To all other NFL fans, it will forever make them wonder what the advantage may have been......
    We will know this in the next few years..although some of the evidence is already there. Post spygate, 18-1.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

      Post Spygate was a different team......You didn't have Moss before....

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

        Originally posted by Gyron View Post
        Post Spygate was a different team......You didn't have Moss before....
        Sure, but we did have a much better defense and a consistent running game. I think that's a fairly even trade off.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

          Originally posted by travmil View Post
          You're wrong. This will never be forgotten by Colts fans or any other NFL fans for that matter. The Tom Brady Pats will always be linked to the spygate cheating scandal. I know it's hard for you to believe, but it's true. Nobody will ever forget.
          Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

          When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

          Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

          When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

          The answers are no, no, and no

          The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

          -a SB walkthrough tape
          -people decoding signals at halftime
          -taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


          It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-13-2008, 05:47 PM.
          The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

            Originally posted by pacertom View Post
            Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

            When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

            Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

            When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

            The answers are no, no, and no

            The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

            -a SB walkthrough tape
            -people decoding signals at halftime
            -taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


            It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.


            Why would BSPN be taking it hard they're the ones who love the Patriots remember?


            Putting that aside those aren't bigger than this not even close. The government didn't get involved in those instances of cheating but this one. That's why it will stand out not to mention Goodell destroying those tapes did more harm than good in the eyes of the public. If he had disclosed what was on those tapes back then instead of sweeping it under the rug folks would be more inclined to believe him. But he didn't and instead he made things look much worse.


            It will never be forgotten by those NFL fans who believe there's something more to this. But in the grand scheme of things you're right the NFL will still keep going as if it never happened.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

              Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
              Why would BSPN be taking it hard
              BSPN loves ratings.

              In December and January they seized upon the opportunity to pump up the Patriots as an invincible force,

              and then they found out greater ratings could be obtained by promoting fabricated stories, continually reminding us that Walsh had bombshells to tell, and insisting that spygate I was just the tip of the iceberg that was spygate II.

              It wasn't the tip of the iceberg, it was a tiny icecube that melted at their feet and they look silly, I am told.

              I say "I am told" since channel 206 on my direct TV remote, ESPN, has long ago been programmed to not exist on my TV lineup. They are dead to me.

              Maybe I should do the same for their web site. Their level of journalism equals that of MTV or the dearly departed Weekly World News, the creator of "bat boy" and the living President Kennedy.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-13-2008, 07:02 PM.
              The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                Originally posted by pacertom View Post
                Are bigger cheaters similarly tainted?

                When you think of John Elway do you think of Super Bowls won when he and Terrell Davis were given secret and illegal contract bonuses to circumvent the NFL salary cap and allow them to sign additional talent to strengthen their team?

                Do you think less of the 90's Cowboys now that Jimmy Johnson says he tried all that taping signals stuff?

                When you think of the Carolina Panthers from a few years back, is the first thing you think of the fact that so many of their players were busted for steroids?

                The answers are no, no, and no

                The only reason this would be any different is that those crimes were far greater than the coverage of the crimes, and in this case it is the opposite. There was endless coverage, for months, based solely upon multiple lies about...

                -a SB walkthrough tape
                -people decoding signals at halftime
                -taping is the "tip of the iceberg" since there has to be other stuff like listening in on QB communication


                It must be sad for you guys to see your fantasies shot down. BSPN is taking it hard too. It will be curious if the Patriots ever bury the hatchet with "the Worldwide Liars", assuming Fish/Schlereth/Hoge et. al. offer no retractions. It may be tough continuing to have access to 31/32 of the league.
                This has nothing to do with any of those other scandals you mentioned. What I'm saying, and it is completely true, is that in 5, 10, even 50 years, people will still remember the Tom Brady era Patriots at least as much for their cheating as they will for their Super Bowl wins. I know it's hard to accept, and you don't like it, and will say anything to try to distract us from it, but it's true. Spygate is over and so are my comments on it. It's not even worth it to try to talk about it anymore.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                  Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                  Putting that aside those aren't bigger than this not even close. The government didn't get involved in those instances of cheating but this one. That's why it will stand out not to mention Goodell destroying those tapes did more harm than good in the eyes of the public. If he had disclosed what was on those tapes back then instead of sweeping it under the rug folks would be more inclined to believe him. But he didn't and instead he made things look much worse.


                  It will never be forgotten by those NFL fans who believe there's something more to this. But in the grand scheme of things you're right the NFL will still keep going as if it never happened.
                  Roids and cheating the salary cap are equally serious if not more serious than taping signals...if you think otherwise, you don't know a whole lot about the NFLs salary cap and how effective steroids can be. I'm also not sure how the government was involved. If you mean one senator (Arlen Specter) who wants to be on the front page of ESPN as much as possible. If you'll recall, this is not the first time he has tried to get involved with the NFL (See him trying to punish Eagles and NFL over handling of T.O.s contract). As for the tapes, Goodell may have made a mistake in destroying the first set, but the second set Walsh turned in were shown on ESPN. The tapes that Walsh turned in are similar to the tapes that Goodell destroyed back at the start of the year. If believing in theory conspiracies helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you..but it's pretty clear that all the Pats did was tape signals. Yes thats bad and it was cheating, but it was punished long ago and it is now proven that there is absolutely nothing more to it.

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  This has nothing to do with any of those other scandals you mentioned. What I'm saying, and it is completely true, is that in 5, 10, even 50 years, people will still remember the Tom Brady era Patriots at least as much for their cheating as they will for their Super Bowl wins. I know it's hard to accept, and you don't like it, and will say anything to try to distract us from it, but it's true. Spygate is over and so are my comments on it. It's not even worth it to try to talk about it anymore.
                  Stop stating this as a fact. This is clearly your opinion. Obviously as a Colts fan, you are always going to remember the cheating first followed by how good of a team they were. I think people will remember the Patriots much more for their dominance then for spygate. You will watch on NFL network or ESPN classic 5,10,15, 50 years from now some of the Patriots SB wins and there wont even be a mention of spygate..you just watch. I just hope the Pats win a couple more SBs just to put all the doubt to rest.
                  Last edited by Moses; 05-13-2008, 10:40 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                    Originally posted by Moses View Post
                    Roids and cheating the salary cap are equally serious if not more serious than taping signals...if you think otherwise, you don't know a whole lot about the NFLs salary cap and how effective steroids can be. I'm also not sure how the government was involved. If you mean one senator (Arlen Specter) who wants to be on the front page of ESPN as much as possible. If you'll recall, this is not the first time he has tried to get involved with the NFL (See him trying to punish Eagles and NFL over handling of T.O.s contract). As for the tapes, Goodell may have made a mistake in destroying the first set, but the second set Walsh turned in were shown on ESPN. The tapes that Walsh turned in are similar to the tapes that Goodell destroyed back at the start of the year. If believing in theory conspiracies helps you sleep better at night, then more power to you..but it's pretty clear that all the Pats did was tape signals. Yes thats bad and it was cheating, but it was punished long ago and it is now proven that there is absolutely nothing more to it.


                    I never said that it wasn't as bad just that it won't be nearly as memorable to the public as Spygate was. Spygate will be memorable because it came during a season where it looked as if the Patriots were going to be undefeated. And the government did take a part in this. They didn't care about the salary cap at all they never have this Spygate situation affects what's on the field. Ergo a fradulent product could affect TV rights and etc.


                    I personally could care less if the Pats stole signals because I don't think they are alone in this and its a common practice in the NFL they were dumb enough to get caught.


                    I do however find it questionable that Goodell destroyed the tapes when he got them and didn't disclose what was on them back in September for that his credibility is going to be questioned and folks will believe the Patriots have preferential treatment because of it.


                    Now you need to accept that.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                      Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                      I do however find it questionable that Goodell destroyed the tapes when he got them and didn't disclose what was on them back in September for that his credibility is going to be questioned and folks will believe the Patriots have preferential treatment because of it.
                      This was the huge red flag for me. Why destroy them if there wasn't something to hide? Surely, the teams have changed their signals by now. Right? The Patriots weren't going to reacquire the tapes. What was there to gain by destroying the tapes before the public -- the people that buy the tickets -- got the full story?

                      To me, it didn't scream Patriot favoritism. The NFL will survive with or without the Patriots. I don't think Goodell would protect them. But he would protect the NFL. Was there something on those tapes that would've hurt the league's credibility? Or revenue?

                      Those tapes could've revealed something horrible about the Patriots. But it's more likely they could've damaged the league's reputation.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                        In other news, The Boston Herald apologized for putting out a false story.

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3395152

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                          Originally posted by Moses View Post
                          Stop stating this as a fact. This is clearly your opinion. Obviously as a Colts fan, you are always going to remember the cheating first followed by how good of a team they were. I think people will remember the Patriots much more for their dominance then for spygate. You will watch on NFL network or ESPN classic 5,10,15, 50 years from now some of the Patriots SB wins and there wont even be a mention of spygate..you just watch. I just hope the Pats win a couple more SBs just to put all the doubt to rest.
                          It's my opinion that spygate will be remembered and forever associated with these Patriots, and it's yours that it won't. Why is it that you can have your opinion, but I can't have mine? We'll call it even and let time decide who is right.
                          Last edited by travmil; 05-14-2008, 08:30 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                            the Herald's apology: sorry, our bad, we made it up... rewind 3 1/2 months, Spygate part II was just a fabrication.

                            The silly part is that the Herald was only the little mouse with a made-up story, who whispered it to the lion BSPN, who continually roared about the fake story, telling us spygate part I was

                            "the tip of the iceberg", that

                            Walsh "seems credible" and

                            "he must have something really important to reveal."

                            It was maddened hearing Sal Palontonio on Mike and Mike essentially lecturing the Herald for lacking journalistic integrity. Sure, they deserve the lecture, but not from ESPN.

                            Hello, McFly!!

                            The guys at ESPN swallowed it hook, line, and sinker and crammed it down our throats, especially Fish, Palontonio, and Schlereth.

                            They also have some explaining to do in the area of journalistic ethics, but they will probably just leave it up to the web site ombudsman to clean up their mess.
                            The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                              I got a big kick out of the stink BSPN was giving the Boston Herald. The Herald was obviously wrong, or their source was, whatever. But Wingo acting all high and mighty when their network thrives on erroneous reports being passed off as fact was laughable.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                                a visual:

                                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X