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

Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

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

  • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

    Originally posted by PurduePacer View Post
    Same here, but doesn't it just record all the weather talk?
    Whoops I missed your post earlier and yeah it pretty much did so I deleted it(more room for my DVR its getting kind of full now)

    Comment


    • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

      We can not rule out the possibility that Brown is always waiting for Lakers.
      Perhaps it´s the scenario.
      Bird have called Brown, and Brown said he have a good chance with Lakers.
      If Lakers choose another coach, then he will likely come to Pacers.
      Birds said OK, and wait for the results.
      And now Brown is signed, both have to move on.
      Just like FA market, Brown is the first domino.
      And it looks like Brown prefers Lakers all the time.

      Comment


      • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

        Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
        and Larry would be the first to tell you that Rick and Harter were a huge reason why he was so successful on the bench.
        This is true, but it seems like whenever I read it, it's used as a knock on Bird as the coach rather than giving him credit for being excellent at what he does best (delegate what he ought to delegate, picking the right people to do said delegation, and otherwise being a leader).

        Comment


        • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

          Back to Mike, I'm assuming he thought he'd end up in Houston, Golden State, or Indiana, and that he would end up interviewing with all 3 before any final decisions were made.

          Then the news came out he was no longer in the Houston race, then suddenly he looks like a strong possibility in Golden State, then even more suddenly he's the Lakers head coach.

          I don't blame either side for not getting an interview done /offer made before the Lakers job came along, because I honestly don't think that was expected by either party heading into the summer.

          However, it looks like we also were close to losing out on Mike Brown to the Warriors. If that had been the case, I'd have been more disappointed if/when I learn we hadn't had an official interview yet with Mike.

          I think Bird and/or Mike wasn't that serious about him coaching here, or Bird and/or Mike assumed that there was no rush before having the interview and things just ended up the way they did.

          Am I disappointed? Yeah, a little bit, but if we end up with Frank Vogel, I'm not going to cry about it.

          Comment


          • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...s_lakers052511

            Lakers should’ve consulted Kobe on Brown hire

            By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports
            8 hours, 38 minutes ago


            tweet156EmailPrintThe idea that Kobe Bryant(notes) would’ve ever called LeBron James(notes) for a confidential scouting report on Mike Brown is sheer fantasy. They don’t share much of a relationship, and even less a common interest in fortifying each other with the best possible coach for a championship chase. Why would they trust each other’s referrals? James wants the Los Angeles Lakers to fail, just as Bryant does the Miami Heat.

            For Bryant, there was never time to consider Brown’s candidacy as Lakers coach because sources close to him say that he was never asked about the candidates to replace Phil Jackson. The Buss family promised they would proceed this way, without the consultation of the most important person in the franchise.

            These are partnerships in the NBA, and Bryant, with five championships, should’ve been part of the process. Bryant didn’t deserve the chance to choose the next coach, nor did he have the inclination. In the end, such an arrangement makes for an impossible dynamic between an indebted coach and a star player.

            Still, Bryant happens to be one of the sharpest basketball minds in the NBA, an ability to see the game in its most overt and subtle ways. So why wouldn’t you want Bryant’s input? Why wouldn’t you want to lay out to him the plan and vision of returning Bryant and these Lakers to championship basketball?

            Mostly, Lakers vice president Jim Buss had a habit of exacerbating Jackson, and he’ll regret it should that be the basis of his relationship with Bryant now.

            The San Antonio Spurs wouldn’t hire a coach without discussing names with Tim Duncan(notes). Steve Nash(notes) gets immense input – probably too much – with the Phoenix Suns. Those two aren’t twentysomething’s at the apex, but they should still be afforded the chance to have names pushed past them. Bryant? The Lakers can still win titles with him. He’s no ceremonial franchise player. All they had to do was say, “Hey, what’s our feeling on Rick Adelman? Mike Brown? We’re balancing these strengths and weaknesses. What do you think?”

            Jim Buss is running the Lakers now, and this is a frightening proposition for everyone. Bryant doesn’t have a strong sense of Brown, sources with knowledge of his thinking said. He hasn’t offered a blessing or a condemnation. Brown was an Eastern Conference coach. He’s something else too: Jim Buss’ way of pushing far from Phil Jackson, passing over longtime assistant Brian Shaw, and staking claim to his own guy. He’s the insecure and largely incapable son of an iconic owner, the older brother of Jeannie Buss, the far more competent sibling to run the franchise.

            Yet, Jerry Buss is turning these Lakers over to Jim, and that’s the reason sources say he conducted the search with his father and general manager Mitch Kupchak assisting him. Now, Jim Buss has two guys in the franchise: Brown and Andrew Bynum(notes). In fact, Buss has made something clear within the Lakers, sources say: Bynum is untouchable in trade talks.

            For now, this could include a sign-and-deal for the Orlando Magic’s Dwight Howard(notes). The Lakers are Howard’s preference, but they don’t have salary cap space to sign him. They’ll need a deal that includes Bynum to the Magic, but there are those seriously doubting Jim Buss’ desire to make such a trade. After all, Bynum was Jim Buss’ discovery, his pet project and believes Bynum will ultimately resonate as the son’s personal Lakers legacy.

            Buss’ loyalty will be Bynum and Brown. These are his guys now. Still, Brown will find a willing ally in Bryant with his desire to re-galvanize the Lakers’ defense. So much of Brown’s success will come with his assistant coaching staff, and a source says the Lakers have yet to formulate a budget for assistants. Brown has never been reluctant to delegate as a head coach, but will the Lakers pay the money to lure ex-Cavaliers assistant Michael Malone out of New Orleans and renowned Tim Grgurich out of Dallas?

            No matter who comes with Brown, one thing’s for sure: And it won’t be easy. Following Jackson with an aging core almost assures failure, but so few jobs in the NBA are ever happily ever after. Brown owes LeBron James a great deal for his career, but it was no accident that the coach omitted James’ name out of his farewell statement upon getting fired in Cleveland. He had an immature James for most of his time. Against his better judgment, Brown watched James and his childhood buddies run roughshod over everything with no repercussions, and ultimately, no respect for Cavs authority.

            Brown gets Bryant on the back end of his career, 32 years old and desperate for a system, a style, that allows these Lakers to reshape themselves as championship contenders. He was on the air Wednesday speaking awkwardly about exchanging text messages with Bryant. No phone call, though. That’s on the Lakers and how they handled the hiring. Bryant is the most important person in the franchise, the best basketball mind, and he should’ve had his voice heard.

            The Lakers could’ve made this so much easier for Brown, but Jim Buss had to make it clear that these are his Lakers now. His guys, Brown and Bynum, are the untouchables now. That’s great and all, but Bryant is still the most powerful voice, most powerful presence in the Los Angeles Lakers. No, Kobe never should’ve selected the next Lakers coach, but he should’ve connected with him long before a text message on Wednesday night. Whatever Jim Buss thinks, these Lakers will be about the partnership of Mike Brown and Kobe Bryant.

            No, Kobe Bryant never would’ve had an interest in talking to LeBron James about Mike Brown. He wants to beat him, not be James’ buddy like so many players in the NBA. And that alone ought to provide some kind of kinship with Brown. The new coach and franchise star have so much in common, and yes, they’ll talk soon. They should’ve talked far sooner. That’s on Jim Buss, and that’s a shame.

            In the end, this couldn’t be Jim Buss’ coach, but Kobe’s too. That’s the only way that this will work, that they’ll ever get a shot together at LeBron in the NBA Finals. This is a partnership, and the most important part of it all is still Employee No. 24.

            Comment


            • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

              Mike Browns sucks as a head coach... good defensive specialist, but not an HC. Would have much rather seen him come back to Indiana in his former capacity as a defensive coach.

              LA just dropped down a notch in my opinion with his hiring.

              Comment


              • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                The thread is about Mike Brown. Please feel free to recognize that in a thread about Mike Brown being hired by the Lakers, some people are going to upset, that he was not hired by the Pacers. If this bothers you please move along.
                When people go overboard about something people will comment on it. If this bothers you, please don't do it.

                Its one thing to say, "damn that sucks" and move on. Its quite another to have 25 posts out of a 7 page thread. You latch onto things and are incapable of letting go sometimes like Hayward and now Brown. This isn't Brown or bust here, we'll be fine.

                Comment


                • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                  Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                  When people go overboard about something people will comment on it. If this bothers you, please don't do it.

                  Its one thing to say, "damn that sucks" and move on. Its quite another to have 25 posts out of a 7 page thread. You latch onto things and are incapable of letting go sometimes like Hayward and now Brown. This isn't Brown or bust here, we'll be fine.
                  It is 15 posts on 7 pages FYI, and many of them are in response to questions people ask of me. So I post something, people respond, I respond back whether its in agreement or disagreement is all the sudden latching on to things? Maybe you need a break from the internet there guy. You make yourself look foolish chiding people for posting about Mike Brown in a Mike Brown thread that is only like 2 days old. If you dont want to read about Mike Brown in a Mike Brown thread then don't read a thread about Mike Brown.

                  As for letting go of things, i'm not the one bringing up Gordon Hayward on this board. Infact 99% of the time I'm not the one bringing up Gordon Hayward as i only ever post about him in the General NBA thread. There are a handful of posters though who love to bring up Gordon Hayward whenever they can. So please direct your ire towards them.
                  You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                    Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                    Whoops I missed your post earlier and yeah it pretty much did so I deleted it(more room for my DVR its getting kind of full now)
                    Dang, I was afraid of that.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                      Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                      It is 15 posts on 7 pages FYI, and many of them are in response to questions people ask of me. So I post something, people respond, I respond back whether its in agreement or disagreement is all the sudden latching on to things? Maybe you need a break from the internet there guy. You make yourself look foolish chiding people for posting about Mike Brown in a Mike Brown thread that is only like 2 days old. If you dont want to read about Mike Brown in a Mike Brown thread then don't read a thread about Mike Brown.

                      As for letting go of things, i'm not the one bringing up Gordon Hayward on this board. Infact 99% of the time I'm not the one bringing up Gordon Hayward as i only ever post about him in the General NBA thread. There are a handful of posters though who love to bring up Gordon Hayward whenever they can. So please direct your ire towards them.
                      I take the internet too seriously? Says the guy who had to correct the number of posts he had in this thread like it helped your stance. Pot calling the kettle black I think. You seem like you take this way too seriously yourself. Im going to make a word up here but I think you're an 'argue-aholic'. You'd probably argue what color shoes I am wearing and you cant even see me.

                      Take your own advice man, take a break.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                        if the Lakers seriously won't trade Bynum for Howard.....

                        Comment


                        • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          I take the internet too seriously? Says the guy who had to correct the number of posts he had in this thread like it helped your stance. Pot calling the kettle black I think. You seem like you take this way too seriously yourself. Im going to make a word up here but I think you're an 'argue-aholic'. You'd probably argue what color shoes I am wearing and you cant even see me.

                          Take your own advice man, take a break.
                          - I counted them out to see if you actually counted them out or just came up with some number out of your hole. I thought to myself, 25? No freaking way. I'm an "argue-aholic"? Why are so you judgemental? I think you just like to judge people. Complaining about the degree of content another person contributes to threads dedicated to that content. What a joke.
                          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                            Originally posted by Sookie View Post
                            if the Lakers seriously won't trade Bynum for Howard.....
                            Yeah, that's insane.

                            Good for everybody else in the league, but still insane.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              - I counted them out to see if you actually counted them out or just came up with some number out of your hole. I thought to myself, 25? No freaking way. I'm an "argue-aholic"? Why are so you judgemental? I think you just like to judge people. Complaining about the degree of content another person contributes to threads dedicated to that content. What a joke.
                              Of course I came up with a number out of 'my a hole'. I don't care that much to actually post count. Yet, I'm the one who takes this too seriously. Besides that it's not confined to just this thread, you like to pretend it is, but it's not. I've barely been here the last couple weeks but everytime I do, I see you brown nosing Brown, or STARTING arguments about Morey being a screw up. That's all your good for. So yes, argue-aholic. Then when someone points it out, you always claim it's someone else's fault. It's never you, and you're never wrong, even when you are.

                              Besides that it's not even about the post count, it's the ridiculous content. "YES! LETS HATE BIRD TOGETHER FOR NOT HIRING BROWN!!! RAWWRR!!"

                              Ravenswooders. I should have known better to say anything, but the bad part is I didn't even mention you by name, but your guilty conscious caused you to jump in and attacking me personally, then seem confused when it comes back to you. Speaking of a joke.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Mike Brown/Lakers in Serious Discussions. Update post #24 -Reports: Brown Lakers new coach

                                I thanked the above post just for the word, ravenswooders.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X