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

For some reason today it hit me again.

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

  • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

    Originally posted by Hicks
    Also, MagicRat, how much did you record that evening, and when are you going to share with the class?
    He's got dirt on all of us now, he's going to blackmail us to no end now...
    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

    Comment


    • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

      Originally posted by Aw
      The financial situation last summer was much more restricting. When Brad's market value soared past everyone's expectations, Donnie didn't think it was wise to to spend that much money on Brad for that long.



      But in the case of BradM, from what we were told via the media, the Pacers didn't even make an offer. Nada. So it was never explored whether Brad would've accepted a shorter deal, or a smaller contract. We can ASSUME he wouldn't have. We can hear the argument that he would've been insulted but then the counter to that is, is not even trying to negotiate something not an insult?

      And we have Walsh's famous Fall quote saying he was going to sign all 3 of his FA's.

      IMHO, something happened unexpected more than just Brad's price going up. Whether Walsh found out Reggie wouldn't accept the minimum as planned even after his previous contract had been a 'Thank You' contract... whether hiring Bird and firing Thomas became an issue....whether Brad's agent pissed off Walsh.... or whether BradM did something behind the scenes that worried Walsh (drinking?), I don't know.

      What I do know is Pollard was not even a servicable replacement.

      I also know I never argued the loss of Brad would cost the Pacers regular season games per se'... I did argue the loss of BradM had the potential to lose games that matter (such as playoffs) and rip away a potential Pacer Dream Team (a team that others could only dream of fielding).

      So as the dust as settled on this I guess I am hoping Walsh based this decision on more than just feeling BradM wasn't worth the money. If that was the case, he clearly missed the boat and will cost the franchise MORE while we try to find a similar skillset or patch around it.

      And I should add, if the answer is: We couldn't afford Brad then Walsh certainly gets some blame for mishandling team finances because he had options before painting himself into a corner.

      EDIT: But we won 61 games and made the ECF's. Unfortunately, everyone is not sitting still and Detroit shows no signs of falling back and BradM fits the bill to something we lack in trying to scale the mountain.

      -Bball


      [edit=68=1092756844][/edit]
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

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

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

        Originally posted by Bball
        Originally posted by Aw
        The financial situation last summer was much more restricting. When Brad's market value soared past everyone's expectations, Donnie didn't think it was wise to to spend that much money on Brad for that long.



        But in the case of BradM, from what we were told via the media, the Pacers didn't even make an offer. Nada. So it was never explored whether Brad would've accepted a shorter deal, or a smaller contract. We can ASSUME he wouldn't have. We can hear the argument that he would've been insulted but then the counter to that is, is not even trying to negotiate something not an insult?

        And we have Walsh's famous Fall quote saying he was going to sign all 3 of his FA's.

        IMHO, something happened unexpected more than just Brad's price going up. Whether Walsh found out Reggie wouldn't accept the minimum as planned even after his previous contract had been a 'Thank You' contract... whether hiring Bird and firing Thomas became an issue....whether Brad's agent pissed off Walsh.... or whether BradM did something behind the scenes that worried Walsh (drinking?), I don't know.

        What I do know is Pollard was not even a servicable replacement.

        I also know I never argued the loss of Brad would cost the Pacers regular season games per se'... I did argue the loss of BradM had the potential to lose games that matter (such as playoffs) and rip away a potential Pacer Dream Team (a team that others could only dream of fielding).

        So as the dust as settled on this I guess I am hoping Walsh based this decision on more than just feeling BradM wasn't worth the money. If that was the case, he clearly missed the boat and will cost the franchise MORE while we try to find a similar skillset or patch around it.

        And I should add, if the answer is: We couldn't afford Brad then Walsh certainly gets some blame for mishandling team finances because he had options before painting himself into a corner.

        EDIT: But we won 61 games and made the ECF's. Unfortunately, everyone is not sitting still and Detroit shows no signs of falling back and BradM fits the bill to something we lack in trying to scale the mountain.

        -Bball

        So much wind. So little substance.

        My guess is that only a championship would shut you people up. And even if we win one this year, you'll counter that we should have won one last year. It never ends.

        The entire dynamic of this team changed with the departure of Brad. And for the better, if you ask me. Foster plays with 10 times the intensity Brad does. And I'll take his guts and hustle down the stretch to Brad's flagging intensity anyday.

        One more thing: the addition of Brad didn't put the Kings over the top. This team soared to new heights without him. If not for a goofy move by the Celtics and Hawks the Pacers would have been right back in the finals and you and Hicks wouldn't be making such BS posts and still talking about something that is so damn old and tired.

        Comment


        • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

          Originally posted by bulletproof
          . If not for a goofy move by the Celtics and Hawks the Pacers would have been right back in the finals and you and Hicks wouldn't be making such BS posts and still talking about something that is so damn old and tired.
          A couple of points...
          It is August and nothing is going on and we aren't celebrating a championship so it is 'woulda coulda shoulda' time for some of us.

          You are correct that if the Hawks and Celtics hadn't been so accomodating it is probably the Pacers playing for the championship. Then again, that's what GM's do. They make moves to try and improve either their immediate lot (Detroit) or their future (teams that have no legitimate title shot any time soon). The Pacers found themselves on the short end of the stick here.

          We had the skillset we needed, and still need, to counter our biggest challengers. Especially in Carlisle's system. For someone who likes to argue about the difference Carlisle's system makes I don't know why you discount what that system would be like with Brad Miller in it? For some reason (money?) he was deemed expendable. I find it hard to believe it was only about the money because Walsh has always been able to find the money when he wanted.

          I can believe there was a misjudgement of Scott Pollard at play here and an undervaluing of BMiller. I'd be willing to bet the Pollard option was known and available LONG before we heard about it... and probably long before BMIller heard of it.

          ..or not...

          -Bball

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

          ------

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

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

            You guys don't seem to be watching the same Brad Miller that I am. I am seeing a genuinly big body with a great midrange jumpshot and great passing skills for a man of his height and girth. Decent low post defender with above average rebounding skills.

            I am also seeing a slow flatfooted defender, who's work ethic is mediocre at best on and off the court, and who breaks down at the end of the season. I know CWebb came back and cut into his minutes and touches, but I'm not basing my observations on stats. If you watched him in the playoffs versus how he was in the beginning of the year (when he played pretty much brilliantly) he was half the player playing at half the speed.

            Could we have used him? Possibly. I think Jermaine's FG percentage was down last year partially because of the lack of a player like Brad Miller. But Jeff brought things to the table that Brad Miller never could. And I seriously doubt Brad Miller was the missing link against the Pistons. Quite honestly, a blocked layup, poor defense on Rip HAmilton and a bunch of mental lapses (not just Ron but as a Team) at the end of the last game plus two major injuries was what lost us that series. Brad Miller could not counter all of those things. The Pacers screwed that series up royally, and next year with more experience, better condition and offseason rest for Jermaine, plus a guy that (maybe) can keep up with Rip in SJax, plus addition by subtraction in losing Harrington, this team could very well go all the way next year.

            All teh way without Brad Miller and the tens of millions of dollars of capspace he is going to be wasting away for the kings when he's in the mid 30's and way past his prime.

            Theres no doubt he's a good player, and sure any team could use him, but he's not worth the cash he's making and I would bet that in the center starved league that the NBA is, at his salary only a handful of teams would take him.

            Also, to think that the Pacers made no offer to him is ridiculous. They may have low balled him, but of course his agent will come out and say something like that to save face and protect Brad.

            Comment


            • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

              Originally posted by SkipperZ
              Also, to think that the Pacers made no offer to him is ridiculous. They may have low balled him, but of course his agent will come out and say something like that to save face and protect Brad.
              I can only go by what was said by all parties involved and that was that the Pacers never made an offer.

              Here's just one of the articles from the time:

              "● BRAD MILLER VISITS JAZZ, NUGGETS: Brad Miller appears to be eyeing an exit from the Indiana Pacers, meeting with officials from the Utah Jazz and Denver Nuggets.

              The Pacers, who are facing a cash crunch, have been exploring ways to unload salaries and free up more money to sign their key free agents. They have yet to offer Miller a contract.

              The Jazz and the Nuggets have more money to sign the free-agent center than the Pacers.

              "If they throw a big number at him, it could be over," Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh said. "

              -Bball

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

              ------

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

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                I may be wrong, but I don't think the Pacers ever got the opportunity to make Brad an offer. His agent was out of the gates and running and fielding offers while the Pacers were still settling JO's affairs. I've gone into this in detail before and I'm kind of tired of repeating myself, but there is a pecking order when it comes to re-signing FAs. In the case of the Pacers, Reggie is always taken care of last because he and Walsh have an understanding. Beyond that, go back and re-read my old posts.

                Comment


                • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                  Originally posted by bulletproof
                  I may be wrong, but I don't think the Pacers ever got the opportunity to make Brad an offer. His agent was out of the gates and running and fielding offers while the Pacers were still settling JO's affairs. I've gone into this in detail before and I'm kind of tired of repeating myself, but there is a pecking order when it comes to re-signing FAs. In the case of the Pacers, Reggie is always taken care of last because he and Walsh have an understanding. Beyond that, go back and re-read my old posts.


                  Educate me on what I am missing. Help me understand the negotiation process in this situation. Reggie will be dealt with last because they have an understanding. JO will be getting the max and that is a given. What's to negotiate with JO? It is what it is. So then why would that have any bearing on giving BMiller an offer (and fairly soon in the process) unless more was at play than what we've been told? That offer could be readied at any time because we KNEW what we were giving JO before the process even started.... as I understand it...

                  Are you telling me Brad's negotiations had to wait while JO decided whether to accept the only offer we could possibly give him? Were there aspects of JO's contract requiring constant attention?

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

                  ------

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

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                    Originally posted by Bball
                    Originally posted by bulletproof
                    I may be wrong, but I don't think the Pacers ever got the opportunity to make Brad an offer. His agent was out of the gates and running and fielding offers while the Pacers were still settling JO's affairs. I've gone into this in detail before and I'm kind of tired of repeating myself, but there is a pecking order when it comes to re-signing FAs. In the case of the Pacers, Reggie is always taken care of last because he and Walsh have an understanding. Beyond that, go back and re-read my old posts.


                    Educate me on what I am missing. Help me understand the negotiation process in this situation. Reggie will be dealt with last because they have an understanding. JO will be getting the max and that is a given. What's to negotiate with JO? It is what it is. So then why would that have any bearing on giving BMiller an offer (and fairly soon in the process) unless more was at play than what we've been told? That offer could be readied at any time because we KNEW what we were giving JO before the process even started.... as I understand it...

                    Are you telling me Brad's negotiations had to wait while JO decided whether to accept the only offer we could possibly give him? Were there aspects of JO's contract requiring constant attention?

                    -Bball
                    Go...back...and...re...read...my...old...posts...o n this subject. You may have been out of the country when we discussed this, but if my memory serves me correctly, you were in attendance. You, me and Ragnar had this discussion loooong ago. Seems like at least 20 years ago.

                    Comment


                    • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                      IIRC BM played some good ball but very often was either in foul trouble or injured to the point that JO had to play alot of minutes at the 5. If we
                      re going to have that situation, WHY NOT play lower payed Jeff and let the high priced Brad walk? It seems as if it is a matter of productivity for the $$$$ Now if Brad had been a consistant 35 min a game player it might have been different. But he wasnt.
                      And before you flame me...I was crying out loud when he signed with Chicago instead of us chasing him. I was one happy dude to get him. I was very pleased with what he brought us but when the pine time started mounting I lost faith. I was extremely upset last year when I saw what I thought was a management attitude of "we want to win right up to this amount of dollars". But I've calmed down enough to reflect on Brad's play...and enough to recognize that he's just another Boilermaker scrub that can't really make it in the NBA
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment


                      • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                        maybe u guys are right and they never made brad an offer.... but im sure they at least gave him a lowball offer, which is fair for him to refuse, but my point is not that brad was dirty in any way.

                        he went out and found the best deal he could find, and the pacers did not have the means to match it.

                        but my point is just that bottom line is he is not werth the money he got, and i think as he gets older and his contract gets fatter that contract will be worse and worse.

                        and i truly believe that while he would be the best center on this team, he not not worlds better than foster and would not have won us a championship last year.

                        Comment


                        • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                          bullet, which would you rather have?

                          C - Foster/Pollard/Harrison
                          PF - O'Neal/Croshere
                          SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
                          SG - Miller/Jackson/FJones
                          PG - Tinsley/Johnsons/Gill

                          OR

                          C - Miller/Foster/Harrison
                          PF - O'Neal/Croshere
                          SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
                          SG - Jackson/FJones
                          PG - Tinsley/Johnsons/Gill
                          [edit=15=1092787381][/edit]

                          Comment


                          • Re: For some reason today it hit me again.

                            Originally posted by Shade
                            bullet, which would you rather have?

                            C - Foster/Pollard/Harrison
                            PF - O'Neal/Croshere
                            SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
                            SG - Miller/Jackson/FJones
                            PG - Tinsley/Johnsons/Gill

                            OR

                            C - Miller/Foster/Harrison
                            PF - O'Neal/Croshere
                            SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
                            SG - Jackson/FJones
                            PG - Tinsley/Johnsons/Gill
                            I don't play games like that because one is a reality and one is not. I'll take the here and now anytime over the past.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X