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

Manning done for the year.

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

  • #46
    Re: Manning done for the year.

    Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
    ********. Anyone who is at all familiar with disk removal and spinal fusion knows this ****. You just need to know some people who have this problem and be of a certain age. You don't need a doctorate to know that removal of disks promote deterioration of disks further down the spine. I'm sure a degree is not required, lol.
    Do you have to be a doctor to know that people who have had a heart attack have heart damage or pancreatic cancer is generally fatal?
    Then why doesn't he shut down his career now instead of putting his body through more football?

    Doesn't it make a little bit more sense for him to talk to his doctors, the highly paid specialists, rather than taking the word of someone over the internet?

    I have a hard time believing someone on a message board over the word of doctors.

    And speaking of heart attacks, not all of them are the same. Some people never knew they've had heart attacks until they go see their doctor and get an EKG done and they see the dead issue of the heart. But then again, all heart attacks are fatal right? Obviously you didn't say that, but you're trying to apply the rules to one injury to the other.

    Let's face it, we've not been told a whole lot about the situation. How can someone give out a diagnosis without seeing the patient, their charts, their scans, or talking to the doctors that did the procedure? You can't.


    The Colts/Manning/his doctors can't decide whether or not he's done for the season, and you're saying he's done for his career.

    I wonder which side is working with a full deck of information. Hard choice to decide.

    EDIT: And once again, I'm not saying he will come back. I'm saying you guys need to slow down and actually let time run it's course. There's no need for us, on a message board, to try and formulate opinions about situations we know very little. What's wrong with simply waiting to find out more information?

    If Dec, or whenever rolls around, and he's still not better. Put him on IR.
    If he's still having issues after the offseason, then retire.

    But there's no point in making those decisions now especially when the specialists simply don't know. If they don't know, I'm supposed to take the word of someone over the internet? Kind of a stretch.
    Last edited by Since86; 09-29-2011, 09:34 AM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Manning done for the year.

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      I never said that you KNEW he was keeping me off the IR for money reasons. I said you made your opinion without any supporting evidence.

      The difference between you using "think" or "know" has zero relevancy to what I'm saying.

      Which is the exact reason why I've said you still don't offer any support, for a THIRD time. How about trying to validate your opinion (see I know the difference) instead of trying to tell me I don't know the difference between fact and opinion? You don't have any support for your opinion, which is why you've still not offered any.
      So I need supporting evidence to say that a billionaire loves money. Really? or to say that he has a vested interest in giving fans hope that Manning could come back this year even if its probably a 1% chance.

      Again I have no problem with Irsay or Polain waiting but I think its ridiculous to think that they wouldn't hold out for money reasons or playoff hopes which aren't mutually exclusive.

      JUst a few questions though. How many teams who have lost their starting QB to CDH have made the playoffs? How many have made the playoffs who started the season 0-3? How many just put their Qb on IR? Those would be some interesting facts to know.

      The whole prove your point aspect your bringing up is silly and I am trying to be respectful here. I don't feel like I have to prove my point to you or anyone else on here to have my opinion. Whether you think it has any merit or not is your right but I could care less either way.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Manning done for the year.

        Saying that Irsay isn't putting Manning on the IR simply to sell more tickets is a little different than saying he likes the color green.

        You're saying he's lying to the public in order to benefit financially from it.



        Which is the exact same thing that you tried saying when Irsay used the Colts to raise money for the Indiana State Fair victims. Trying to say he was greedy to use the Colts.

        When you start handing out personal attacks, I think you should have atleast a little bit of support for what you're saying. It's not like your giving your opinion on how the pizza tastes. It's a pretty disrespectful thing to say whether or not you're talking about Jim Irsay or you're talking about Robert Kraft.



        As far as your questions, I don't think there has been another QB that's went through this type of injury. Not one that I've been able to find, and I've been looking. Which is what I've been saying. This is uncharted territory, not only for Manning, but for the medical profession. Tito Ortiz had this procedure done and he fought in the UFC afterwards. He wasn't the same Tito, but he still was able to compete phsyically. Whether or not his decline was due to the injury, or just due to the fact that he was old, I don't think we really know.


        I don't know how many teams have gotten to the playoffs after a 0-3 start. The Chargers from a couple of years ago started out 1-2, and ended up being 4-8 before winning their last 4 games and getting in with a 8-8 record.

        The Colts have TB, KC, and Cinn, as their next three games. Those are all winnable games. TB will be the toughest out of the 3, but if the Colts play like they did against the Steelers, they have a pretty good chance.

        That would put them at 3-3 with NO, Tenn, ATL, and then Jax. Both divisional games are winnable. So they could be at 5-5 after 10 weeks with week 11 as their bye.


        Week 11 is 11/27. What happens if Peyton is cleared to play at the beginning of Dec. with a 5-5 record? Carolina, NE, Balt, Tenn, Houston, and Jax are all left.


        Is it likely? Probably not, but it's definitely do able. Why would you want to shut down your QB, when you have no solid information on how his recovery will go nor how the season will play out?
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Manning done for the year.

          And one last thing about the whole money issue. Do you follow Irsay on twitter? He gives gives away money/prizes multiple times a day. He's giving away a trip to TB, tickets, airfare, limo, hotel, and $300 in spending money just for getting a trivia correct.

          He put up $3,000 for someone to guess the correct number he was thinking inbetween 1 and 10,000.

          We all know Peyton is done for a while, it's not like people are buying tickets in case he might play. If/when he plays, it will be a huge deal. But right now, people are acting (like they should) like he's done and that is effecting ticket prices already.
          http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-peyto...1145813.column

          I really don't think holding off putting him on IR is driven by money.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Manning done for the year.

            I don't think it's a money issue either. I mean, I think 99% of the fans think he's done for the season as it is. Him not being on IR doesn't seem to be giving anyone hope that he's coming back and they know that, so it's hard to argue that they are doing it for money reasons.

            Might as well keep him on the roster if you aren't 100% certain that he's done. I think it's extremely doubtful that we'll still be in contention in late November, but you never know. I'm still not convinced that Houston is all that so it's possible that 8-8 could still take that division. At least we know that Peyton is still alive and has been walking around at practice lately. Might as well keep him around, because the tiny % chance he plays is still better than most guys' who'd you pick up to replace him.

            It's a damn shame that we don't have a halfway decent quarterback, because if we did we would have easily beaten the Steelers on Sunday, and probably the Browns too.

            With Manning we would have absolutely throttled the Steelers. It sucks, because I would have loved to stomp them and seen all those Steelers fans with their terrible towels tucked between their legs.
            Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-29-2011, 12:24 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Manning done for the year.

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              I don't think it's a money issue either. I mean, I think 99% of the fans think he's done for the season as it is. Him not being on IR doesn't seem to be giving anyone hope that he's coming back and they know that, so it's hard to argue that they are doing it for money reasons.

              Might as well keep him on the roster if you aren't 100% certain that he's done. I think it's extremely doubtful that we'll still be in contention in late November, but you never know. I'm still not convinced that Houston is all that so it's possible that 8-8 could still take that division. At least we know that Peyton is still alive and has been walking around at practice lately. Might as well keep him around, because the tiny % chance he plays is still better than most guys' who'd you pick up to replace him.
              I wonder if the Colts are out of contention in mid December if we see Manning? I think its possible.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Manning done for the year.

                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                Then why doesn't he shut down his career now instead of putting his body through more football?

                Doesn't it make a little bit more sense for him to talk to his doctors, the highly paid specialists, rather than taking the word of someone over the internet?

                I have a hard time believing someone on a message board over the word of doctors.

                And speaking of heart attacks, not all of them are the same. Some people never knew they've had heart attacks until they go see their doctor and get an EKG done and they see the dead issue of the heart. But then again, all heart attacks are fatal right? Obviously you didn't say that, but you're trying to apply the rules to one injury to the other.

                Let's face it, we've not been told a whole lot about the situation. How can someone give out a diagnosis without seeing the patient, their charts, their scans, or talking to the doctors that did the procedure? You can't.


                The Colts/Manning/his doctors can't decide whether or not he's done for the season, and you're saying he's done for his career.

                I wonder which side is working with a full deck of information. Hard choice to decide.

                EDIT: And once again, I'm not saying he will come back. I'm saying you guys need to slow down and actually let time run it's course. There's no need for us, on a message board, to try and formulate opinions about situations we know very little. What's wrong with simply waiting to find out more information?

                If Dec, or whenever rolls around, and he's still not better. Put him on IR.
                If he's still having issues after the offseason, then retire.

                But there's no point in making those decisions now especially when the specialists simply don't know. If they don't know, I'm supposed to take the word of someone over the internet? Kind of a stretch.
                i have no idea why you come to the conclusions you do from how people respond to you. I never said his career is over. i just said he needs to really heal so the fusion is complete and not at risk. i also said that the fusion will cause him problems in the future because he is now missing a disk and that places added pressure on other disks. This isn't rocket science and you don't need a degree to understand this. You make inferences that just don't make sense given various responses. And your comments about heart attacks are just unanswerable. Dead tissue is just that meaning the heart is damaged which is what i said.We are talking about the generalities of spinal fusions and if you want to believe that Manning is somehow above mortal injury go ahead but just stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about because they don't have a doctorate.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Manning done for the year.

                  I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, not because you don't have a doctorate, but because even the freaking doctors don't know what is exactly going on.

                  How many specialists has he seen so far? He's had THREE different surgeries. Which either means it's a pretty significant problem that can't be fixed all in one time, or they really don't know what to do because mutliple doctors have different opinions.

                  If Peyton's own doctors don't know exactly what is going on, then how in the hell do YOU know?

                  That's right, you don't.

                  Trying to formulate an opinion on whether or not he should be put on IR, when you don't have any details serves what purpose exactly?


                  Not one person has answered the question I've posed multiple times. What harm does it do to simply wait? I can't think of any drawbacks.

                  What good does it do to rush to judgement and make a decision with with half the story? I can think of a lot of drawbacks.

                  A lot of different questions need to be answered before you decide what the next course of action is.



                  I've never said Manning will be okay. I've said we don't know what will happen. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Manning done for the year.

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, not because you don't have a doctorate, but because even the freaking doctors don't know what is exactly going on.

                    How many specialists has he seen so far? He's had THREE different surgeries. Which either means it's a pretty significant problem that can't be fixed all in one time, or they really don't know what to do because mutliple doctors have different opinions.

                    If Peyton's own doctors don't know exactly what is going on, then how in the hell do YOU know?

                    That's right, you don't.

                    Trying to formulate an opinion on whether or not he should be put on IR, when you don't have any details serves what purpose exactly?


                    Not one person has answered the question I've posed multiple times. What harm does it do to simply wait? I can't think of any drawbacks.

                    What good does it do to rush to judgement and make a decision with with half the story? I can think of a lot of drawbacks.

                    A lot of different questions need to be answered before you decide what the next course of action is.



                    I've never said Manning will be okay. I've said we don't know what will happen. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you.
                    I don't think the guy is claiming that the Manning's should seek him for advice or that he he knows more than the doctors know. He's making very general observations and stating what he thinks they should do. There is no need to react in the antagonistic way that you appear to be doing. My opinion, as always.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Manning done for the year.

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about, not because you don't have a doctorate, but because even the freaking doctors don't know what is exactly going on.

                      How many specialists has he seen so far? He's had THREE different surgeries. Which either means it's a pretty significant problem that can't be fixed all in one time, or they really don't know what to do because mutliple doctors have different opinions.

                      If Peyton's own doctors don't know exactly what is going on, then how in the hell do YOU know?

                      That's right, you don't.

                      Trying to formulate an opinion on whether or not he should be put on IR, when you don't have any details serves what purpose exactly?


                      Not one person has answered the question I've posed multiple times. What harm does it do to simply wait? I can't think of any drawbacks.

                      What good does it do to rush to judgement and make a decision with with half the story? I can think of a lot of drawbacks.

                      A lot of different questions need to be answered before you decide what the next course of action is.



                      I've never said Manning will be okay. I've said we don't know what will happen. If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to tell you.
                      I'm done with you because you are impervious to logic or reason. You only know what they say for public consumption and not what they really know. You think Manning has some unique physical situation that no one has ever seen before?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Manning done for the year.

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        I'm done with you because you are impervious to logic or reason. You only know what they say for public consumption and not what they really know. You think Manning has some unique physical situation that no one has ever seen before?
                        You haven't offered any logic or reason.

                        You are trying to say that you know more than his doctors. That's logical and reasonable? Hardly.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Manning done for the year.

                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          I don't think the guy is claiming that the Manning's should seek him for advice or that he he knows more than the doctors know. He's making very general observations and stating what he thinks they should do. There is no need to react in the antagonistic way that you appear to be doing. My opinion, as always.

                          He said Peyton is done for the year and possibly next year. He didn't say he thought Peyton is done. He said he is done.

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          Peyton is not coming back this year no matter what and possibly not even next season.
                          Is it semantics? Maybe. But speakout needs to say it was his opinion rather than trying to validate why he said it.



                          If you're going to present something as a fact, I'm going to ask you how you know that as a fact. I fully expect someone to hold me to the same standards.

                          I asked if he was a doctor, and he told me he didn't need to be a doctor to know. How can he know how the situation is going to play out when Peyton's doctor doesn't even know?

                          Not only that, but he then he starts trying to say that the doctors might be liable for the setbacks.

                          Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                          Two failed surgeries and then taking a chance of a third failure by not waiting out the full recovery period borders on malpractice on the part of the docs who might clear him.
                          There is simply no way of knowing this sort of stuff unless you've been present during the consultation. For all we know his doctors have been advising him to do other things, but Peyton has disagreed.
                          Last edited by Since86; 09-30-2011, 02:30 PM.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X