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

Sports Guy plagiarizes me!!!

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

  • Sports Guy plagiarizes me!!!

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...cowbell/041122

    By Bill Simmons
    Page 2

    "Just from the natural aging process, it's safe to say Ron Artest is probably 5-7 percent less crazy than he was last season."
    In the "Things I Actually Wrote" Pantheon, that's probably right at the top. I wrote that Artest sentence just three weeks ago. Now he's screwed up the Pacers, the NBA and 10 percent of the fantasy teams in North America. On the bright side, he gave us one of the memorable TV nights of all time, a subject which I covered in my magazine column this weekend (which runs on Page 2 tomorrow). And he becomes the watershed example of a crazy athlete, surpassing Vernon Maxwell, Dennis Rodman, Ricky Williams, Theo Fleurry and everyone else.

    Without stepping on tomorrow's column, here are some random thoughts from the weekend:

    1. The smoking gun from Friday night, at least for me: Artest went after the wrong fans. If you watch the actual game tape, which they re-ran on ESPN2 in the wee hours that night, there's a replay after everything settles down that shows the blue cup plunking Artest. The camera angle comes from the basket where Artest fouled Wallace, so you can see him lying on the scorer's table, plus you can see the stands behind him (and everyone who eventually becomes involved in the fight).

    Thanks to TiVo, if you frame-by-frame it, you'll see the beer comes flying from behind the head of someone wearing a white sweatshirt, and that person is standing two rows behind the guy that Artest initially jumps. Once the camera shifts and everyone starts pouring into the stands, the beer tosser's identity is revealed -- a little bald guy who turns back to high-five someone else in the stands even as Artest is knocking that first guy down.

    That's what changed the stakes for the Commish. Artest wasn't just flying into the stands to confront a fan in the wrong -- he had no idea who threw the cup, meaning he was randomly attacking innocent fans. In other words, that could have been you or me standing there with that "Wait a second ... noooooooooooooooo!" look on our faces. You think David Stern wants a running situation where potential ticketholders are saying to each other, "Those tickets are great, I'd love to sit three rows from the court, I don't mind spending the money ... but we're sure none of the players are gonna beat us up tonight, right?" Not happening. They want to make sure this never happens again.

    (What happens if Artest went after the correct fan? It's a little more understandable. Not much ... but a little.)

    2. The MVP of the night from a comedy standpoint? Stephen Jackson, who somehow came off crazier than Artest -- first he challenged the entire Pistons team, then he was throwing haymakers in the stands ... he was like the Token Crazy Guy in the Baseball Fight, multiplied by 100. I liked when Greg Anthony called him out on ESPN this weekend as a "gangsta." Perfect description. There wasn't anything even remotely rational about his behavior from the moment Artest committed that foul -- right down to him leaving the stadium with his arms raised, as people were dumping beer on him, almost like he was pretending to be a pro wrestler.

    3. In a related story, if you scrolled through the lineups of all 30 teams before the season, then asked yourself, "What pair of teammates would be the most likely candidates to start a fight in the stands, eventually leading to the ugliest sequence in NBA history?", the heavy favorites would have been Artest and Jackson in Indiana, with Zach Randolph and Ruben Patterson a distant second in Portland. Those are the facts. That might have been a shocking night, but at no point did anyone who follows the NBA on a regular basis say to themselves, "I can't believe Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson are taking on Row 3 in the Palace right now!" Sketchiest pair of teammates in the league, roughest group of fans in the league. Not a good combo.

    4. Most underrated part of the night: The ESPN Shootaround crew defending Artest on Friday night by saying that he diffused the situation with Ben Wallace by lying on the scorer's table, then had every right to flip out once someone tossed a beer on him. First of all, Artest was lying on the table because he was being a jerk -- there were 10 people between him and Big Ben, so there was more than a little gamesmanship in that move. He knew it would infuriate Wallace. Which it did. Second, who the heck would defiantly lie on a scorer's table like that? Would Grant Hill have done that? KG? Dwyane Wade? Steve Nash? Anyone rational? And third, if you're trying to tempt opposing fans to do something dumb, that's the perfect place to do it -- which is why Larry Brown was screaming at the refs to get him off there.

    (Note: I'm not using the "He was Asking for It" defense like Pistons CEO Tom Wilson did Friday night, but at the same time, Artest should have known nothing good would happen once he intentionally blurred the barrier between the court and the fans. And it's not like they were playing in Salt Lake City or the Meadowlands here -- they were going against a heated rival that plays in the fiestiest city in the league. Seriously, what were the odds of someone lobbing a beer on him? Even money?)

    One more note on the Shootaround crew, which sided clearly with the players Friday night. Yes, the fans acted terribly. Yes, Artest was riled up from the Wallace altercation, so it's understandable that he could have snapped when that blue cup nailed him. But why didn't those four guys -- John Saunders, Tim Legler, Stephen A. Smith and Greg Anthony -- wonder if Artest went after the correct fan? And why wouldn't you criticize Artest for being dumb enough to lie on that scorer's table in the first place? Or at Stephen Jackson for acting like an instigator instead of a peacemaker?

    (Note: Legler is my favorite ESPN guy for hoops. But I hope he doesn't actually believe that, in the same situation, any player in the league would have done what Artest did that night? You're telling me Grant Hill would have done that?)

    5. If you watch the game -- which has already earned coveted "Save until I delete" status on my TiVo, by the way -- two plays led to Artest's hard foul. With 6:43 remaining, Rip Hamilton threw a cheapshot elbow into Jamaal Tinsley's back after a defensive rebound (they called a foul as the Pacers bench erupted). That could have been a flagrant since it looked like Hamilton went out of his way to belt him. And with 1:25 remaining, down by 11 points, Wallace knocked Artest into the basket support while blocking his layup -- from the camera angle, you can't tell if it's a foul or not. So if you're playing the "Why was Artest fouling Wallace with such a big lead?" card, the play wasn't much different than Wallace's block. He just got more of a piece of him.

    6. If one more person makes the Vibe Awards joke, I'm going to impale a pen into my temple.

    7. This seems like a good place to bring up the suspensions:

    Artest (season) -- Given his past history, this seemed fair to me. The NBA wanted to make it clear that players aren't allowed in the stands under any circumstances -- you want situations where players are pointing out the culprits, not punching them. But do you really think the Players Association will allow one of their guys to lose an entire season of paychecks? Please. If he's not back by March 15, I'll be absolutely stunned.

    (But here's my compromise idea: For the rest of the season, before every game, Artest gets wheeled out to midcourt like Hannibal Lecter -- you know, tied to one of those white stretchers and wearing a strait jacket and the metal facemask. Then, they untie him, and he gets to warm up with his team. I think this would get the message across to the fans -- stay away from this guy.)

    Jackson (30 games) -- Should have been more. Even though Artest charged the stands, it still seemed like he was holding something back. Jackson came off like a bad guy in an action movie who just starts spraying his Uzi into a crowd of people for no reason. And if you watch the Wallace-Artest altercation, in the seconds leading up to Jackson challenging Lindsay Hunter and Derrick Coleman, those guys didn't do anything that would have made him angry. He was like an enforcer in a hockey game who just wanted to drop the gloves with someone. What a nutjob.

    O'Neal (25 games) -- This was the one that bothered me. On one of the Detroit TV websites, they have a clip of Artest fighting those two guys in front of the Pistons bench -- the situation was a little more dire than it seemed on the ESPN replays. When O'Neal landed his Kermit Washington punch, from the Detroit TV replay, it looked like that guy was getting up to charge Artest again before O'Neal belted him. More importantly, what were they doing on the floor? Doesn't that make them fair game? By all accounts, O'Neal is one of the best guys in the league -- he does a ton of stuff for his community, wins awards, all that stuff. The fact that O'Neal, out of anyone, was so upset out there shows how dangerous it was. I bet this suspension gets knocked down.

    Wallace (6 games) -- Seems a little low. Wallace kept escalating the incident by trying to get to Artest, leading to the blue cup getting thrown from the stands. If you're making an example out of Artest, make one out of Wallace -- none of this would have happened if he didn't keep pouring gasoline on the fire.

    (Intriguing note on Wallace: One of his posse members was the huge guy who attacked Fred Jones from behind. During the initial altercation, you can see the guy lurking behind Artest as Artest lies on the scorer's table, almost like he's ready to jump him. You can also see him consoling Wallace's kids after the fact.)

    Pistons fans (no games) -- Because the Detroit fans threw all that stuff on the court, I would have suspended the Pistons from selling beer for 60 days. There has to be SOME accountability there. I would fine them for not having enough security on hand for the first Pistons-Pacers game of the season -- maybe the toughest rivalry in the league right now other than Minnesota-Denver -- and I would fine the Pistons CEO for unveiling the "He was asking for it" defense about Artest (just a sleazy thing to do).

    8. Adam Carolla had an interesting take on this incident: Imagine being the guy at the game who was first attacked by Artest? You've been watching these guys for two hours, you're pretty buzzed, you're loving the seats ... and then this fight breaks out, and it's riveting as hell, and then suddenly Artest gets nailed by the cup and he's coming right at you. As Carolla said, it would be like watching "Captain Hook" in the movies for two hours, then Captain Hook comes right out of the movie screen and attacks you. Would you have blamed that first guy for soiling himself?

    (Which reminds me, two people are going to become very rich from this thing: The first guy Artest attacked and the first guy Stephen Jackson punched. They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't provoke anybody. They were basically attacked for no good reason. Somebody get Jim Sokolove on the phone!)

    9. Ironic turn of events: Artest might have time to promote his rap album now, but the album would have to sell as many copies as Michael Jackson's "Thriller" to pay for his lost paychecks and his legal fees.

    10. Silver lining from the suspensions: More Darko over the next few games! He needs to show something here -- even Chad Ford is turning against him at this point.

    11. Random question: What chain of events would need to happen for you to pour beers on players as they were leaving an NBA game? Would anything cause a reasonable human being to do this?

    12. Underrated moment of the night: Jim Gray's one report where his voice started inexplicably quivering ... someone on the SOSH message board compared it to Michael Jackson breaking down at the end of the "She's Out of My Life." And this was the same man who interviewed Mike Tyson after the second Holyfield fight! How could he be rattled by this melee? By the way, the way his career is going, I'm surprised Jim Gray wasn't on hand when Jack Ruby shot Oswald and O.J. was first introduced to Nicole. He's like the Zelig of horrible incidents.

    13. Funniest running subplot: Sending taunting e-mails to That Guy in your Roto League who has Ron Artest. Mine is Matt "Money" Smith. He's reeling. Imagine being his fantasy owner as Artest headed into the stands? Wait, Ron ... noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

    14. Don't count out the Ewing Theory with the Pacers and Artest. You only need 35 wins to make the playoffs in the Trainwreck East. And if you're worried about the Pacers competing with a depleted team, as Chad Ford points out in today's column, they still have some cap money left for free agents, plus they can always find someone dumb enough to give them fair value for Artest -- you know, like Isiah Thomas, for instance. If they can remain within striking distance in March and get everyone healthy and unsuspended, there's no reason the Ewing Theory couldn't carry them from there.

    Still, the Pacers need to move Artest -- get 50 cents on the dollar for him, give him a fresh start somewhere else, and that's that. Larry Bird is smart enough to know that Artest's presence on his team, from this point on, will overshadow everything they do. They also need to get help immediately for him before the season possibly slips away.

    But who would have the intestinal fortitude to trade for a guy who's clearly one of the best 25 guys in the league?

    Three teams make sense but would be too afraid to pull the trigger:

    A. Portland -- Something like Artest, Scot Pollard, Anthony Johnson and a No. 1 for Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Doesn't it seem like his destiny to play there? Unfortunately, after everything Portland fans have gone through, the Blazers would probably rather trade for Scott Peterson.



    B. Boston -- Artest and a No. 1 for Jiri Welsch and Yogi Stewart. Unfortunately, the local media would skewer the Celtics for this one ... so it's not happening. Red Auerbach would have made this trade though. He's the same guy who traded for Kermit Washington 27 years ago.


    C. Memphis -- Artest, Johnson and a No. 1 for Bonzi Wells. Indy gets another scorer, Jerry West gets another potential All-Star. But he would never subject Hubie Brown to the Artest Era, not at Hubie's advanced age.


    That leaves the following teams:


    A. Philly -- Artest and Pollard for Glenn Robinson. Basically a straightforward salary dump -- Robinson's contract expires this summer. And if there's one city that would embrace Artest and forgive his past mistakes, it's Philly.


    B. Dallas -- If Artest's suspension was cut down, couldn't you see the Benefactor rolling the dice with Artest, Pollard and a No. 1 for Jerry Stackhouse and cap filler? Remember, this is the same man who once shelled out $100 million for Raef LaFrentz and Shawn Bradley. Anything's possible.


    C. New York -- Artest, Pollard and a No. 1 for Tim Thomas. Isiah coached Artest, knows what he can do, played with people like him, would love the fact that it would get the city talking ... and considering that New York is the same city that embraced Sprewell five years ago, the thought of Artest thriving in Manhattan doesn't seem far-fetched. I bet anything he lands here.


    15. Here's the shame of it all: The Pacers thumped the Pistons that night. Just a dominating performance. Remember how close they came to beating Detroit last spring? Considering that the Pistons have a weaker bench this season, plus the Pacers upgraded from Al Harrington to Jackson -- who gave them consistent scoring and another top-notch defender -- as Friday's game winded down, it seemed pretty clear that Indiana was the best team in the East. At least right now.


    Then all hell broke loose.


    And with the way Dwyane Wade is playing right now -- ironically, his MJ-level crunch-time performance against Utah wrapped up minutes before the melee in Detroit -- Miami has to be considered the favorite in the East. In fact, I think I need to go place a wager on them ... until tomorrow.


    Bill Simmons is a columnist for Page 2 and ESPN The Magazine. His Sports Guy's World site is updated every day Monday through Friday.

    ---
    Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

    "What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  • #2
    Re: Sports Guy plagiarizes me!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sports Guy plagiarizes me!!!

      Regarding Artest:

      But do you really think the Players Association will allow one of their guys to lose an entire season of paychecks? Please. If he's not back by March 15, I'll be absolutely stunned.
      Regaring O'Neal:

      By all accounts, O'Neal is one of the best guys in the league -- he does a ton of stuff for his community, wins awards, all that stuff. The fact that O'Neal, out of anyone, was so upset out there shows how dangerous it was. I bet this suspension gets knocked down.
      I hope he's right...
      "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
      -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

      Comment

      Working...
      X