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

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
    D-BONE,

    Respectfully, I must remind you that people in positions of "celebrity" ARE in fact held to a higher standard.

    John Rocker, the Dixie Chicks, Tom Cruise, the list goes on. If you are in the "public eye," you face steeper consequences for the things you do and say. One slip-up and you're toast.

    I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that's the way it is.

    Applied to this situation, Players of a professional basketball team have the name of a state on their chests. Whether they like it or not, they are a representative of the state and carry the responsibility that goes along with it.
    You betcha! Just ask the Iman.
    .

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      You know I do wonder if they'll let Stephen wear his Warrior jersey while he walking the highways collecting the discarded pop/beer cans and fastfood wrappers.

      I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt until he decided show his maturity with the Frisk dance routine. He doesn't get it........
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by Roferr View Post
        You betcha! Just ask the Iman.
        What did she do?

        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          The bottom line is, we lost. Jack is a millionaire, playing in the playoffs. We are stuck being the fans of a team that won't make the playoffs for the next 3-4 years. Jack wins, we lost...lets move on.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Bill Walton during the SA/Denver game:

            "It's like Stephen Jackson of Golden State. Individual agendas supercede the team goals."

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
              Bill Walton during the SA/Denver game:

              "It's like Stephen Jackson of Golden State. Individual agendas supercede the team goals."
              Yeah, I heard that ****. He was talking about J.R. Smith, an incredible athlete. Hot-head though. I still like the guy.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
                Bill Walton during the SA/Denver game:

                "It's like Stephen Jackson of Golden State. Individual agendas supercede the team goals."
                He also called them one of the most exciting teams to watch in the NBA and raved about their play all night, including mentioning a great defensive switch by Jackson to come out on Dirk and get a critical stop.

                You don't want to use the Walton statements from that last game to make the point, he was 90% of the time praising him (and the Warriors). He loved his emotion, he loved his effort, he loved his output.

                Plus Bill is the most inconsistant commentator in the NBA, he'll blast a guy for something he was just praising him for earlier, simply when the results change.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  The problem with this argument is you are now comparing ME to Jackson. I am expressing my opinion. One that happens to be held by many other people. Jackson is a knucklehead because of his actions. My actions (and opinions) are NOWHERE NEAR HIS. When you see my name in the police blotter or when you read about me being ejected from my workplace and fined $50,000 for it, then your argument gets a little closer to reality. Right now it is rubbish.
                  But see what my response got from you? You switched from "he's bad cause I say so and people that defend him are bad cause I say so" TO "he's bad cause of the police record". That at least is tangible and therefore debateable.

                  To that I say 1) Brawl - probation, 2) Rio, 3) Rio occurring within the final week of his probation.

                  It's not nothing, but it's not a long list just yet. Both Rio and probation issues are unresolved still. So that addresses your "he's bad because of his rap sheet".

                  JO had DOUBLE the counts against him from the brawl, did that make him twice as bad as Jack at that point? Honestly I recall plenty of other fans besides me defending the Pacers in general that night.

                  I used to be more on Jack because of his pre-stands activity, but it was pointed out to me at the PD party that one of the Pistons in fact did shove him or something and that's when he turned around and looked ready to fight. This is not me saying this, you'd have to get Peck, Keg, Mal or someone to refresh that story, based on what people at the party said they saw on the tape.

                  So you've got a guy throwing A punch at a drunk who was coming at Ron in a very aggressive manner more than a guy looking to start something. I mean in terms of citizenship that's a LONG way from the dark side of humanity.

                  If he started it at Rio, if they jumped a defenseless cripple (doesn't sound like it went that way, ie it was mutual), if he shot AT the car...then you have something to be offended about.



                  As for bringing up a CEO criminals, my point is that NO ONE raves about the very public and much more influential on Indy life (due to loss of jobs and money for the city) Hilbert, his apparent illegal use of corporate funds, his stripper wife and use of that questionable money to continue to attend Pacers games.

                  You sit next to the guy comfortably and then point fingers at the guy on the court as if THAT is completely unacceptable. HE was at a strip club! So what, so was the dude sitting next to you. So was the icon of Pacers basketball. This has been debated to death. Reggie has as many strip club and bar brawl incidents in his career as Jack. Barkley wasn't at Rio to throw Dino and Fingers through a window, that's about the difference.

                  I only ask that you hold standards that are balanced with what truly impacts your life. In the realm of criminal behavior that affected or offended your way of life, Jack's Rio thing is miniscule. But people blew it to "OMG, I cannot stomach his presence, he's an affront to god". Can't we just have a reality check on this?

                  His sin was not playing good enough basketball. Fans were already questioning him long before Rio, his first non-basketball incident. That tells me it had everything to do with on-court results and that the Rio thing just made a comfortable blanket to wrap the hate up in.

                  It's the same reason everyone dismissed Rhode's actions, and while he isn't a Colt now his actions were in Indianapolis and were illegal. But SB hero gets a pass. If he fumbled away the game at the last second his DUI would have outraged the entire city. That's hypocritical IMO. That's why it bugs me with Jack.

                  He's not lovable, but he's also not hateable either as far as I can tell. He's frustrating, and that's only because so often he is a good player and seems likeable and then loses his cool and acts like a baby or gets all defensive. Then he has to sheepishly apologize the next day, like he did after he went off in the locker room 2-3 seasons ago against JO. Next day "I'm sorry, I was wrong."

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                    What did she do?

                    Imus was known as the "Iman" on his show.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      But see what my response got from you? You switched from "he's bad cause I say so and people that defend him are bad cause I say so" TO "he's bad cause of the police record". That at least is tangible and therefore debateable.

                      To that I say 1) Brawl - probation, 2) Rio, 3) Rio occurring within the final week of his probation.

                      It's not nothing, but it's not a long list just yet. Both Rio and probation issues are unresolved still. So that addresses your "he's bad because of his rap sheet".

                      JO had DOUBLE the counts against him from the brawl, did that make him twice as bad as Jack at that point? Honestly I recall plenty of other fans besides me defending the Pacers in general that night.

                      I used to be more on Jack because of his pre-stands activity, but it was pointed out to me at the PD party that one of the Pistons in fact did shove him or something and that's when he turned around and looked ready to fight. This is not me saying this, you'd have to get Peck, Keg, Mal or someone to refresh that story, based on what people at the party said they saw on the tape.

                      So you've got a guy throwing A punch at a drunk who was coming at Ron in a very aggressive manner more than a guy looking to start something. I mean in terms of citizenship that's a LONG way from the dark side of humanity.

                      If he started it at Rio, if they jumped a defenseless cripple (doesn't sound like it went that way, ie it was mutual), if he shot AT the car...then you have something to be offended about.



                      As for bringing up a CEO criminals, my point is that NO ONE raves about the very public and much more influential on Indy life (due to loss of jobs and money for the city) Hilbert, his apparent illegal use of corporate funds, his stripper wife and use of that questionable money to continue to attend Pacers games.

                      You sit next to the guy comfortably and then point fingers at the guy on the court as if THAT is completely unacceptable. HE was at a strip club! So what, so was the dude sitting next to you. So was the icon of Pacers basketball. This has been debated to death. Reggie has as many strip club and bar brawl incidents in his career as Jack. Barkley wasn't at Rio to throw Dino and Fingers through a window, that's about the difference.

                      I only ask that you hold standards that are balanced with what truly impacts your life. In the realm of criminal behavior that affected or offended your way of life, Jack's Rio thing is miniscule. But people blew it to "OMG, I cannot stomach his presence, he's an affront to god". Can't we just have a reality check on this?

                      His sin was not playing good enough basketball. Fans were already questioning him long before Rio, his first non-basketball incident. That tells me it had everything to do with on-court results and that the Rio thing just made a comfortable blanket to wrap the hate up in.

                      It's the same reason everyone dismissed Rhode's actions, and while he isn't a Colt now his actions were in Indianapolis and were illegal. But SB hero gets a pass. If he fumbled away the game at the last second his DUI would have outraged the entire city. That's hypocritical IMO. That's why it bugs me with Jack.

                      He's not lovable, but he's also not hateable either as far as I can tell. He's frustrating, and that's only because so often he is a good player and seems likeable and then loses his cool and acts like a baby or gets all defensive. Then he has to sheepishly apologize the next day, like he did after he went off in the locker room 2-3 seasons ago against JO. Next day "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
                      I quoted the whole rant again simply because it is getting comical the lengths you are going to prove that you are right and I'm not.

                      The bolded part (the part that I bolded)...yet again, you miss the point.....I ALWAYS was saying he was a knucklehead because of his behavior. I could care less in the real world about how he plays. There are plenty of marginal players that were fan favorites because they were PROFESSIONALS.

                      You assumed I was only trying to assert my own opinion as the end all-beat all because I stated the obvious. This particular time, it is OBVIOUS that my opinion is the correct one. He is a knucklehead. Other people aside from me know this. We are the "others" I spoke of who "know better". I'm not right because I happen to have an opinion. It is just so obvious that I'm right, that I was pointing out that people who don't apparently "know better" only diminish my opinion of them by continually defending an obvious knucklehead to no end. It doesn't take spewing philosophical axioms to be able to see this or explain this away. Take that one step further to see how insignificant this little argument is by me stating another obvious point: Why should the people I speak of care what I think of them? If they can rationalize Jackson's behavior away, they can certainly rationalize away my being correct...Hmmmmm.....

                      Yet again, you drone on and on, rationalizing away the actual depth of what he has done, and continues to do. 'He was saving Artest; JO had twice the charges, he might have started the Rio incident, he might have shot at the car'....You give shining examples of what I'm talking about. I don't live in Indy. I live in a small town, and if someone I knew of had Jackson's track record, he would ALSO be a knucklehead. I wouldn't want the guy coaching my son's teeball team; I wouldn't want to be semi-friendly with him; I CERTAINLY wouldn't defend his actions.

                      The CEO stuff you keep ranting about makes me wonder when I ever defended this Hilbert guy...I have no idea who he is, I've never heard the stories you quote and talk about. From what you are saying, he sounds like a knucklehead as well. Fine. You found a knucklehead CEO in America. UNBELIEVABLE! I hold him to the same standards as Jackson. I am vilifying him also, if it makes you feel better.

                      My point with the CEO analogy was apparently too hard to catch as well. (Sigh) This is getting cumbersome continually having to break my posts down into more understandable terms....I think it is acceptable to assume that FOR THE MOST PART (but certainly not EVERY time), people who happen to have the money to live a more opulent lifestyle than the average person (ME being one of those average persons) can be expected to act in a more civilized manner. You will probably not find too many gun-toting, brawling, trash talking hot heads at a place that charges a couple hundred dollars a plate for food. Notice I said PROBABLY...There is always that chance that Jackson or some other knucklehead had reservations there.....

                      I'm not on some moral crusade, and CERTAINLY not because Jackson's "sin" was not playing good enough basketball. I guess I lead a life that is sheltered enough that I don't want/need to waste my time on people who continually show how little control over themselves they have. I seem to be pretty good at ducking them. Nobody I know has had an incident resembling any of Jackson's "negatively impacting" incidents in twenty years or more. I suppose it is safe to say that I don't like them on my favorite NBA team either....

                      Now, FOR THE LAST TIME.....

                      STEPHEN JACKSON IS A KNUCKLEHEAD AND PEOPLE WHO DISMISS HIS ACTIONS AS NOT THAT BAD, OR DISMISS HIS ACTIONS BECAUSE HE IS "EXCITING" OR IN THE INTEREST OF WINNING BASKETBALL GAMES LUMP THEMSELVES RIGHT THERE WITH HIM......IN MY OPINION, AND APPARENTLY MANY OTHERS' OPINIONS........

                      Is that clear enough????




                      RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                        I like watching Jackson play from a distance. Wouldn't want him on my team, much like Vince Carter, but boy it's fun rooting for the guy.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by heywoode
                          I quoted the whole rant again simply because it is getting comical the lengths you are going to prove that you are right and I'm not.

                          The bolded part (the part that I bolded)...yet again, you miss the point.....I ALWAYS was saying he was a knucklehead because of his behavior. I could care less in the real world about how he plays. There are plenty of marginal players that were fan favorites because they were PROFESSIONALS.

                          You assumed I was only trying to assert my own opinion as the end all-beat all because I stated the obvious. This particular time, it is OBVIOUS that my opinion is the correct one. He is a knucklehead. Other people aside from me know this. We are the "others" I spoke of who "know better". I'm not right because I happen to have an opinion. It is just so obvious that I'm right, that I was pointing out that people who don't apparently "know better" only diminish my opinion of them by continually defending an obvious knucklehead to no end. It doesn't take spewing philosophical axioms to be able to see this or explain this away. Take that one step further to see how insignificant this little argument is by me stating another obvious point: Why should the people I speak of care what I think of them? If they can rationalize Jackson's behavior away, they can certainly rationalize away my being correct...Hmmmmm.....

                          Yet again, you drone on and on, rationalizing away the actual depth of what he has done, and continues to do. 'He was saving Artest; JO had twice the charges, he might have started the Rio incident, he might have shot at the car'....You give shining examples of what I'm talking about. I don't live in Indy. I live in a small town, and if someone I knew of had Jackson's track record, he would ALSO be a knucklehead. I wouldn't want the guy coaching my son's teeball team; I wouldn't want to be semi-friendly with him; I CERTAINLY wouldn't defend his actions.

                          The CEO stuff you keep ranting about makes me wonder when I ever defended this Hilbert guy...I have no idea who he is, I've never heard the stories you quote and talk about. From what you are saying, he sounds like a knucklehead as well. Fine. You found a knucklehead CEO in America. UNBELIEVABLE! I hold him to the same standards as Jackson. I am vilifying him also, if it makes you feel better.

                          My point with the CEO analogy was apparently too hard to catch as well. (Sigh) This is getting cumbersome continually having to break my posts down into more understandable terms....I think it is acceptable to assume that FOR THE MOST PART (but certainly not EVERY time), people who happen to have the money to live a more opulent lifestyle than the average person (ME being one of those average persons) can be expected to act in a more civilized manner. You will probably not find too many gun-toting, brawling, trash talking hot heads at a place that charges a couple hundred dollars a plate for food. Notice I said PROBABLY...There is always that chance that Jackson or some other knucklehead had reservations there.....

                          I'm not on some moral crusade, and CERTAINLY not because Jackson's "sin" was not playing good enough basketball. I guess I lead a life that is sheltered enough that I don't want/need to waste my time on people who continually show how little control over themselves they have. I seem to be pretty good at ducking them. Nobody I know has had an incident resembling any of Jackson's "negatively impacting" incidents in twenty years or more. I suppose it is safe to say that I don't like them on my favorite NBA team either....

                          Now, FOR THE LAST TIME.....

                          STEPHEN JACKSON IS A KNUCKLEHEAD AND PEOPLE WHO DISMISS HIS ACTIONS AS NOT THAT BAD, OR DISMISS HIS ACTIONS BECAUSE HE IS "EXCITING" OR IN THE INTEREST OF WINNING BASKETBALL GAMES LUMP THEMSELVES RIGHT THERE WITH HIM......IN MY OPINION, AND APPARENTLY MANY OTHERS' OPINIONS........

                          Is that clear enough????

                          I feel for you Heywoode. I've had my tete-a-tetes with him on the Star forum. He gets my vote for most argumentative and fanatical poster.
                          .

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by Roferr View Post
                            I feel for you Heywoode. I've had my tete-a-tetes with him on the Star forum. He gets my vote for most argumentative and fanatical poster.
                            Well, one could make the argument that I've been pretty argumentative and fanatical about the current debate too, I guess....I've been cranky lately too, and I must admit that I REALLY don't like Jackson.

                            I have normally been impressed with Naptown Seth's knowledge and the way he states his case...

                            I guess this post is as much for him as it is a reply to you; I can go a little overboard stating my case....I still think I'm pretty much right on about Jackson, but I'm really not completely judging people by their support/non-support of Jackson. The first time I posted in this thread I had just read enough posts that it made me a little annoyed at what seems like blind love for the guy....

                            Bottom line: Everybody is entitled to their opinion....

                            Thanks for the support though!



                            RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              If Dirk wins MVP and Stephen Jackson is better then Dirk. Stephen Jackson should get the MVP award.

                              Bay Area >>>

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                WARRIORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CAME OUT TO PPLLLLAAAYYYYY

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X