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

I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

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

  • I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

    This one has been bugging me since last night.

    There are people who are claiming that Ron going into the stands was a case of self defense. I've even seen the Prosecuter of that county muse if this was the case.

    I'm not trying to be difficult here but could somebody explain to me how it's self defense?

    Wouldn't it be retaliation?

    I mean let's assume for a min. that it was the bald guy in the blue wallace shirt that threw the cup. He was standing there with his hands in his pocket.

    At what point would a person have the right to strike him in self defense.

    Isn't self defense supposed to be that you are protecting yourself from harm or further harm?

    Let's further assume that hitting him is self defense. How far does it go? Is one punch justified? Is two? Can you pound the guy unconscious? I mean really what is self defense about it if the guy poses no further harm?


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

    It was no more self defense than what Ben Wallace did to Artest.

    So I agree with you Peck, self-defense is not going to fly.

    It might be a somewhat understandable reaction, but not self defense

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

      I don't see any justiication for what Ron did. Yes, I completely agree that it would/should make him mad, but a cup of ice was not a serious threat to Ron Artest's health, nor did it endanger his life. Heck, he didn't even know who to go after and hit the wrong guy. It was not self-defense.

      The Pistons fan was certainly wrong for throwing the cup and he put Ron in a difficult situation - a situation that called for a test of Ron's emotional maturity. Ron failed the test miserably. If he would have simply walked to the center of the court, or perhaps notified security, we would have come home with a big win, avoided a riot, and all of our stars would be eligible to play.

      [edit=195=1101052535][/edit]

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

        You are exactly correct Peck. If you scour some of my previous posts (an excellent past time which I highly recommend, not unlike reading Buffet's annual reports to Berkshire-Hathaway shareholders), I think you'll see I said exactly the same thing.

        Ron did what he did out of ~Pride~, not protection or safety.

        As a juvenile probation officer I hear this "self-defense" thing a lot. I always tell the kids unless you had NO OTHER OPTIONS (including running away), you aren't fighting in self-defense, you're just fighting.
        "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

          If Ron didn't do anything, would more people have seen this guy get away with throwing objects at his head, and tried for themselves???

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

            I think the sad truth is if Ron had done the right thing and walked away, the guy who threw the beer would have had minimal consequence. One positive that may come from the incident is the fans will be more closely scrutinized.
            "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

              For those of you that have a tape of this game, please review the incident. Ron DID NOT throw a punch when he went into the stands until after the guy in the blue shirt started hitting him from behind.

              Sjax hit a guy after he threw a drink and ice onto Ron. I have found no pictures of Ron punching someone in the stands. He did put his hand into the face of the fan and pushed him down but he did not punch him.

              If someone has a different view showing Ron puching someone in the stands, I would like to see it.

              I am not defending Ron going into the stands, just saying I have not seen any pictures or tape of him hitting someone when he went into the stands.

              I would rather be the hammer than the nail

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                When Ron went into the stands...he didn't swing at the guy in the glasses. He just threw him down and I'm sure he was just yelling at him.

                The only time I saw Artest throwing punches was when the guy in the Wallace shirt started hitting him from behind.

                David Stern and his crew won't recognize this though...
                AKA Sactolover05

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                  David Stern and his crew won't recognize this though.


                  he has to and i'm totally SURE that some on the PACERS Franchise will MAKE BLOODY WELL SURE they do

                  I'm with Redneck, I have rea severel posts and articles and watched the espn coverage several times to have noticed that RonRon even if he did have the wrong guy and the actual guy was the one who was sucker punching him later on while " attempting " to drag him of he was the culprit

                  I am of the understanding that RonRon just shoved and held the fan down and yelled at him, why did you do it why did you do it.. and never actully threw a punch

                  Jax defended RonRon while he was asking that civil question and threw some punches at some fans that where hassling RonRon ie throwing Ice and drinks while he was askin the fan why why why...
                  Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                    The self-defense idea isn't going to float. Pride was the mitigating factor here, like it is with most things in life. I'd probably do the same thing.

                    1.Ron gets hit with the drink.
                    2. He looks towards the stands and sees everyone laughing and clapping. The crowd is revelling in his embarrassment.
                    3. Ron thinks he knows who threw the drink, and in the very least, he sees a taunting, pointing fool, laughing at Rons' predicament (a good place to start)

                    Probably a more normal reaction that finding a towel to dry off with (while probably dodging MORE objects) in front of a few thousand laughing people who will gladly heckle you on the way off the floor. Meanwhile, the drink thrower is treated like a hero by his fellow fans. Who can argue that this wouldn't be the case?

                    Still it was the wrong reaction. Normal, perhaps, but wrong. I'm trying to imagine which players would NOT react that way. Maybe Grant Hill, little point guards, Ghandi, MLK.

                    One thing I am sure of is that (in his playing days) Pacers head cheese Larry Bird would have been kicking some major fan-*** too (on second thought, he probably would have just put the fan in a headlock like he did Dr.J.)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                      Originally posted by stipo
                      The self-defense idea isn't going to float. Pride was the mitigating factor here, like it is with most things in life. I'd probably do the same thing.

                      1.Ron gets hit with the drink.
                      2. He looks towards the stands and sees everyone laughing and clapping. The crowd is revelling in his embarrassment.
                      3. Ron thinks he knows who threw the drink, and in the very least, he sees a taunting, pointing fool, laughing at Rons' predicament (a good place to start)

                      Probably a more normal reaction that finding a towel to dry off with (while probably dodging MORE objects) in front of a few thousand laughing people who will gladly heckle you on the way off the floor. Meanwhile, the drink thrower is treated like a hero by his fellow fans. Who can argue that this wouldn't be the case?

                      Still it was the wrong reaction. Normal, perhaps, but wrong. I'm trying to imagine which players would NOT react that way. Maybe Grant Hill, little point guards, Ghandi, MLK.

                      One thing I am sure of is that (in his playing days) Pacers head cheese Larry Bird would have been kicking some major fan-*** too (on second thought, he probably would have just put the fan in a headlock like he did Dr.J.)
                      dont shoot me for doing this....but since im relatively new here, i decided to go back in the archives....and a place i gravitated towards was the brawl....i must say it has been very interesting reviewing what everyone had to say...

                      i did find this post very interesting when discussing how just about anyone would do what ron did in going into the stands....the funny par is naming grant hill....who just recently said hed probably have done the same thing....

                      once again...i do somewhat apologize for bringing brawl threads back around...but thought it might be a bit amusing....

                      ill also say reading these threads and everyones comments is somewhat therapeutic....u might try it sometime.....the unity that existed was pretty cool....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                        Originally posted by stipo
                        Still it was the wrong reaction. Normal, perhaps, but wrong. I'm trying to imagine which players would NOT react that way. Maybe Grant Hill, little point guards, Ghandi, MLK.

                        One thing I am sure of is that (in his playing days) Pacers head cheese Larry Bird would have been kicking some major fan-*** too (on second thought, he probably would have just put the fan in a headlock like he did Dr.J.)
                        I'm sorry, but most people would not have reacted the same way. Ron clearly has an impulse control disorder, namely Intermittent Explosive Disorder.

                        Intermittent Explosive Disorder - Episodes of aggressive outbursts resulting in either destruction of property or physical assaults on others. Typically, this problem results in legal problems as well, because the individual is often charged with assault, or a domestic violence charge.

                        Loss of control is an essential feature of this disorder. The individual, usually male, has had several incidents of losing control of anger, resulting in aggressive acting out, either by assaulting others, or destroying property. The degree of aggression is always out of proportion to any precipitating factors that might be present (within an argument, for example). Typically, these individuals will not take responsibility for their loss of control, instead blaming the victim, other circumstances in their life, or some third party who may have told them something or said something that "caused" their uncontrolled anger. Lack of control is a central part of the problem, and inability to accept responsibility for the aggression helps to alleviate guilt. It also prevents the individual from making any changes.

                        http://www.psychologyinfo.com/proble...e_control.html

                        Of course, that's just my amateur diagnosis.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                          Originally posted by Harmonica
                          I'm sorry, but most people would not have reacted the same way. Ron clearly has an impulse control disorder, namely Intermittent Explosive Disorder.

                          Intermittent Explosive Disorder - Episodes of aggressive outbursts resulting in either destruction of property or physical assaults on others. Typically, this problem results in legal problems as well, because the individual is often charged with assault, or a domestic violence charge.

                          Loss of control is an essential feature of this disorder. The individual, usually male, has had several incidents of losing control of anger, resulting in aggressive acting out, either by assaulting others, or destroying property. The degree of aggression is always out of proportion to any precipitating factors that might be present (within an argument, for example). Typically, these individuals will not take responsibility for their loss of control, instead blaming the victim, other circumstances in their life, or some third party who may have told them something or said something that "caused" their uncontrolled anger. Lack of control is a central part of the problem, and inability to accept responsibility for the aggression helps to alleviate guilt. It also prevents the individual from making any changes.

                          http://www.psychologyinfo.com/proble...e_control.html

                          Of course, that's just my amateur diagnosis.

                          this really, really wasnt my intent by bringing up that post...i found it quite funny that he mentioned grant hill wouldnt respond the way artest did...when two weeks ago grant said that he probably wouldve...like most have said they probably wouldve....

                          lemme think....someone throws a full beer in my face....yea...im thinking i and probably 200 million americans might have this disorder then....

                          can u help me out with the cure as well?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                            Originally posted by foretaz
                            this really, really wasnt my intent by bringing up that post...i found it quite funny that he mentioned grant hill wouldnt respond the way artest did...when two weeks ago grant said that he probably wouldve...like most have said they probably wouldve....

                            lemme think....someone throws a full beer in my face....yea...im thinking i and probably 200 million americans might have this disorder then....

                            can u help me out with the cure as well?
                            We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think most people would have reacted the same way under similar circumstances, although I can't imagine what those circumstances might be. Let me play a game with you for a second: Say you came home that night and had no knowledge of the events that took place and your wife or best friend explained to you what happened without naming names. And then he or she asked you to guess who the player was that went into the stands. I don't think it would take you many guesses to get it right. Simply put, trouble just seems to find some people more than others and it's no surprise that Ron was at the center of events that night.

                            Oh, and I know that wasn't your intention by bringing up that post, I was merely responding to Stipo independent of your post.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: I'm sorry for so many threads but I have another question....

                              Originally posted by Harmonica
                              We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think most people would have reacted the same way under similar circumstances, although I can't imagine what those circumstances might be. Let me play a game with you for a second: Say you came home that night and had no knowledge of the events that took place and your wife or best friend explained to you what happened without naming names. And then he or she asked you to guess who the player was that went into the stands. I don't think it would take you many guesses to get it right. Simply put, trouble just seems to find some people more than others and it's no surprise that Ron was at the center of events that night.

                              Oh, and I know that wasn't your intention by bringing up that post, I was merely responding to Stipo independent of your post.
                              lets just say this...i would prefer to not be put in a position to anyway defend or belittle rons actions....

                              if ur asking does ron have a reputation? yes...does he have an emotional disorder similar to the one u described? yes....with regard to the events that nite and the events that followed over the next few days, which do i feel was more at work...the reputation...

                              and it very well couldve been the first time....because yes..for the first time i guess i do feel he was judged more on his reputation versus the actual action....which...sooner or later is probably unavoidable...

                              but i will say this and then leave it alone...many of the detractors like to itemize the long laundry list of things when it comes to his behavior...last years ECF, tv camera, migraines....take them all....and as ive said, i wont argue or debate the validity of any of them....i do however feel the events on 11/19 were different....and will only use this to point that out-everything else ron has ever done, u cant help but shake u r head, and just kinda say ron, 'whatta ya doing'.....and he would have almost noone to side with him on whatever actions ur discussing.....

                              11/19 is a different story....like it or not....given all the circumstances of the evening that u did refer to.....not only do people understand what he did, the vast majority of people would probably not respond in a much different fashion...as i was perusing the threads from back around the brawl...i read something that said that ron was assaulted 3 times before he responded(this was a media report, not a poster on here)....

                              once when ben gouged him in the throat....once when ben hit him with a towel/headband and once when hit with the cup full of beer....now i wouldnt necessarily call those things assault...but i do think theres a message there....given the evenings events and the overall intensity of the game, to then be faced with those situations one right after another....while his actions are not condoned they are understood....most often times we dont understand rons actions....this time the whole world understands....and the majority of the world would probably have done something very similar....

                              i would suggest to u, if that player wouldve been anyone other than ron artest the impending suspensions wouldve been dramatically different....and i would disagree with ur vehemently if u told me that if it were any other player they wouldnt have gone up in the stands and never would have been in that situation....that is something i do not agree with at all....while i do agree that its no coincidence most of the time when people with bad reps find trouble....i do feel that that nite was an exception....and why i view it as somewhat of a fluke....cause really....think about it.....drunk guy hits target from 15 rows away? this guy would put carnies out of business....

                              i only choose to look at it this way now....the severity probably speeds up and intensifies rons recovery....when u look the death penalty in the eye u cant help but be a changed person....funny how the talk back then on here was all about the team unifying when all were back....and how this could be a deciding factor in rons recovery....now if everyone can remember that and have enuff patience to see it thru to fruition , there should be a lot of relief to go around...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X