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

Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

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

  • #76
    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.

    UB can say that he thinks Jim needs to go after this season, trying to sneak it in, but still won't come out and say WHY he thinks so. You can't defend the man each and every time with excuse after excuse but agree that he needs to find another job.

    He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.

    And I think UB is doing it now so much just because he's been digging the hole beside Jim's for so long, he might as well lay in it. It's just easier than admitting Jim screwed up.
    I didn't think this thread (for the most part) was about Jim O'Brien. I mean he's the coach, so sure he is there, but I didn't plan on discussing him in this thread at least not directly, don't plan to start now. I have been more than forthcoming in my reasons for everything.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

      You play to win the game. You play the best players you have to win the game.

      Nothing else matters. That is what our team is built on and will continue to be until the bitter end.

      Last year, Murphy was better than Josh. Play Murphy till the wheels fall off.

      Last year, AJ got 20 minutes per game for a good stretch, and he earned it after outplaying others in practice. That's plenty for a rookie point guard who was a 2nd round pick. It was also for the best of the team. When TJ outplayed AJ in games, then play TJ till the wheels fall off (concussion). Ok, I'm fine with that too.

      Basically, play who you think will win the game for you this season, and play them till the wheels fall off. End of story. That is how the Pacers play basketball.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I didn't think this thread (for the most part) was about Jim O'Brien. I mean he's the coach, so sure he is there, but I didn't plan on discussing him in this thread at least not directly, don't plan to start now. I have been more than forthcoming in my reasons for everything.
        Isn't Jim the one who decides on playing time? I think who is mostly definately part of the topic when you're discussing what.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Isn't Jim the one who decides on playing time? I think who is mostly definately part of the topic when you're discussing what.
          That is why I posted (for the most part)

          I believe in the three year rule for coaches except in extreme circumstances. Does that answer your question?

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

            I guess so, even though I think that "3 year rule" was just something that Larry threw out there because he didn't want to be a coach for that long. I think it's a wrong theory, but that's not the discussion so.......
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              Okay, we're agreeing on the simple points, but you've referrenced midseason twice, so I'll go with it.

              Which do you prefer, letting him get minutes midseason when Tyler went out or letting Dunleavy and DJones get the minutes?
              Oh, I hated those tiny lineups and I thought Josh didn't get enough minutes.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              This is the problem I'm having with you and UB, mostly you. We agree on what should happen, but when we point out that it didn't happen the way both of us agree on, I get told excuses on why Jim didn't do it.
              Well, I tend not to try to get into Jim's head. I only begin to provide counterexamples when some posters (not you) can only chalk it up to idiocy or incompetence.

              Especially on things that are a matter of degree, I can say that what is being done isn't ENOUGH for me, but I can also understand that my preference may not be based on complete information or that the coach and I have a different view of it.

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              He's either doing a good job and needs to stay, or he isn't. I think you guys are trying to have it both ways.
              Has it been that absolute every year? I think for a long time the answer in Bird's mind has been "we don't have enough data to know if he is doing a good job or not". I have tried in may threads to point out places where the answers aren't absolute, and there are other ways to look at what was going on, and - very specifically - what has changed from year to year (where some would claim the last 3+ years have been a monolithic same ol' same ol' with the same coach, same players, same opponents, and same results).

              My position is that I personally don't think O'Brien is a very good coach. I don't think he is a horrible coach. I would be more unhappy with the extension if I didn't think we the team was not capable of taking advantage of a new coach. Because of that, I didn't want to waste one of those limited years a coach has on a team that was going to change completely and - to be honest - an environment that will change completely after next year's lockout and new CBA. I don't think JOB is wreaking havoc on the team, he just isn't that good. I think he has flaws, but I think it is unfair to sound-bite them into "he doesn't want players to play defense", or "he only wants players to chuck up three pointers", or "he never develops young players" - at worst it is more complex than that, at best they aren't right when you look at the actual numbers.

              I don't think I've deviated from that position.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                So if in 2 months we hear that Lance is outplaying Collision in practice, i say who cares, good for lance, but Collision is tired from playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition
                Won't actually happen, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that this scenario does in fact happen. Similar scenarios have happened in the past, and this is a major bone of contention with respect to the performance of our coach, even if his primary objective is to win games by playing the players who give the team the best chance to win.

                You would say "Who cares" when a rookie is being recognized in the media, for all to hear, for outplaying a player who has been worn down due to playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition, ignore that and play the vet regardless, when doing so would diminsh the performance of that position and reduce the ability of the team to meet your ultimate objective, which is winning games?

                How Jim O'Brien of you.

                At least your viewpoint is consistent, you continue to fight the good fight, and I applaud you for that regardless of how much I disagree with your view on O'Brien.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                  I've included snippets of my thoughts on this topic in several other threads, so I'll try not to be as wordy as I tend to get. But, my priorities would be:

                  1. Win games.... That's what our city and fanbase need and if we have any integrity at all, we realize that's why the game is played in the first place.

                  2. Make the playoffs.... if possible.

                  3. PF & Wings - provide at least enough playing time to evaluate the players to determine who the keepers are and form an opinion regarding the upside of each. But do NOT play any player for the sake

                  4. Attempt to acquire new players at either PF and/or SG positions if it has been concluded that we don't have a player available at the position that can develop enough talent to support a team capable of contending for a deep playoff run in the future. Go ahead and complete the trade during the season if an exceptional player becomes available and an accpetable trade can be worked out.

                  I know many are high on McRoberts. In the past, I have not been. Like others, I do see a marked improvement. He not only has improved his body, but he seems to be "more comfortable" on the court as well. But, my gut feeling is that McRoberts (and possibly Hansbrough) will never be more than just very good backup players on a contending team. With the cap space that we will have next summer, that is the type of evaluation that must be quickly and accurately made by TPTB. Do we need to acquire a starter at PF? Or, at SG?

                  I can already state that next summer my thought will be that we have the cap space to acquire exceptional players that will resolve our most glaring weaknesses. At that time, I think we will know our weakest points and acquire the best players we can, even if that means pushing a starter to the bench. That just means that our team, and its depth, is that much better.

                  So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                    Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                    Won't actually happen, but for the sake of discussion, lets say that this scenario does in fact happen. Similar scenarios have happened in the past, and this is a major bone of contention with respect to the performance of our coach, even if his primary objective is to win games by playing the players who give the team the best chance to win.

                    You would say "Who cares" when a rookie is being recognized in the media, for all to hear, for outplaying a player who has been worn down due to playing 35 minutes a night in heated competition, ignore that and play the vet regardless, when doing so would diminsh the performance of that position and reduce the ability of the team to meet your ultimate objective, which is winning games?

                    How Jim O'Brien of you.

                    At least your viewpoint is consistent, you continue to fight the good fight, and I applaud you for that regardless of how much I disagree with your view on O'Brien.

                    I think it was not a good decision for Jim O'brien or any coach to discuss how one player is outplaying another in practice. If you want to say AJ price is really playing well in practice lately then say that, don't say he outplayed Ford and Watson. How do we know what that really means. How was he outplaying them - Jim should never say that again no matter who the players are involved.

                    On the point just because the starter is worn down in practice doesn't mean they won't be ready and still much better than the reserve when it is time to play a real game.
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2010, 03:15 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                      Yes, you are obviously correct. Jim simply not saying anything would have stopped that controversy before it ever started.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                        I've included snippets of my thoughts on this topic in several other threads, so I'll try not to be as wordy as I tend to get. But, my priorities would be:

                        1. Win games.... That's what our city and fanbase need and if we have any integrity at all, we realize that's why the game is played in the first place.

                        2. Make the playoffs.... if possible.

                        3. PF & Wings - provide at least enough playing time to evaluate the players to determine who the keepers are and form an opinion regarding the upside of each. But do NOT play any player for the sake

                        4. Attempt to acquire new players at either PF and/or SG positions if it has been concluded that we don't have a player available at the position that can develop enough talent to support a team capable of contending for a deep playoff run in the future. Go ahead and complete the trade during the season if an exceptional player becomes available and an accpetable trade can be worked out.

                        I know many are high on McRoberts. In the past, I have not been. Like others, I do see a marked improvement. He not only has improved his body, but he seems to be "more comfortable" on the court as well. But, my gut feeling is that McRoberts (and possibly Hansbrough) will never be more than just very good backup players on a contending team. With the cap space that we will have next summer, that is the type of evaluation that must be quickly and accurately made by TPTB. Do we need to acquire a starter at PF? Or, at SG?

                        I can already state that next summer my thought will be that we have the cap space to acquire exceptional players that will resolve our most glaring weaknesses. At that time, I think we will know our weakest points and acquire the best players we can, even if that means pushing a starter to the bench. That just means that our team, and its depth, is that much better.

                        So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.
                        I generally agree with all points of this post. I think if we followed the plan you outlined in your post- the team will be in great shape to contend next year.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                          Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                          I think it was not a good decision for Jim O'brien or any coach to discuss how one player is outplaying another in practice. If you want to say AJ price is really playing well in practice lately then say that, don't say he outplayed Ford and Watson. How do we know what that really means. How was he outplaying them - Jim should never say that again no matter who the players are involved.
                          I agree, this was a poor choice of words by Jim. Just going to play devil's advocate here, but if his intent was to just to show AJ that he was that confident of him to say that in public, and to make that as a sign that AJ just needs to wait and that he will get minutes, then I'm ok with that. I think that that could do wonders to player's confidence that other methods would have not produced.

                          But I do agree that he should never do that again.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                            Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            I don't think JOB is wreaking havoc on the team, he just isn't that good. I think he has flaws, but I think it is unfair to sound-bite them into "he doesn't want players to play defense", or "he only wants players to chuck up three pointers", or "he never develops young players" - at worst it is more complex than that, at best they aren't right when you look at the actual numbers.
                            We talked about this last week, I've never said anything in those sound-bites. I've never said any of it. I can't say he NEVER develops players, because obviously he has, see Rush/Hibbert and Iggy in Philly.

                            But at the same time he's made it crystal clear that if he has another option, even if it's a bad one (ahem, Rasho) he isn't afraid to use it.

                            I would appreciate it when we are talking that my claims and non-claims be used, because we run into this scenario. Instead of discussing on what we agree/disagree I have to defend my position on things I don't, and haven't said.

                            I stayed out of your back and forth debate with 90's about the whole win/loss thing, for the most part, for a reason. Because that part of the discussion isn't accurate on my feelings about the situation. I would appreciate it when my opinions aren't lumped into other's opinions, because clearly, I don't agree with them.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
                              So, find just enough playing time to evaluate the players and their potential upside. Determine who the keepers are. Then acquire new players that address our priorities, starting with our most glaring weaknesses.
                              You're missing the large picture though. It's hard to determine who the keepers are when you do everything in your power to keep them off the court rather than seeing if they can be part of the future when the opportunity arises.

                              If Tyler and Foster stayed healthy, I doubt you would have saw much of an argument about Josh. He hadn't shown any reason why he should get PT over them. But when both are out, and your other options are to play Josh or play Dunleavy/DJones at the 4, people are going to get ticked off, as they should.

                              If Jim followed your advice, there wouldn't be a discussion. But just like my example with Josh he did it with AJ even saying "Well now he's back on the bench because we now know what we have."

                              How brilliant.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Winning vs developing the younger guys: your thoughts before the season

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I would appreciate it when we are talking that my claims and non-claims be used, because we run into this scenario. Instead of discussing on what we agree/disagree I have to defend my position on things I don't, and haven't said.

                                I stayed out of your back and forth debate with 90's about the whole win/loss thing, for the most part, for a reason. Because that part of the discussion isn't accurate on my feelings about the situation. I would appreciate it when my opinions aren't lumped into other's opinions, because clearly, I don't agree with them .
                                You have brought up a very good point. What you are saying happens to you happens to me all the time and probably everyone in this forum - it is just the nature of the beast. it is just very difficult to have multiple conversations going on with several different people.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X