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

    I bought a ticket in the nosebleeds for like 80 bucks or so, a long time ago just in case the Warriors made the playoffs, and I sold it to my Warrior fan buddy for 250 bucks.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Man I don't even need to say it anymore. Who's the better team here really?

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        remember when i said GSW was going to win this series.

        I really like watching this team play. This is basketball worth watching.
        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          Originally posted by heywoode View Post
          After reading the rest of your posts up to this point, I've decided it is barely worth any more of my time to try and explain what I disagree with regarding Jackson. The condensed version is below:

          A few other posts have stated well enough about why Jackson's negatives will always outweigh his positives.

          He needs a "handler" or babysitter to keep him in line. Rodman was a worse nutcase, but at least he could go out and grab 20 rebounds. When his act got too much to handle, he was GONE.

          Jackson's comment succinctly describes the problem. Something about obviously he needs to police himself when it comes to his emotions and he's going to CONTINUE to do that. Tell me when he STARTED doing that. He isn't having very much success, I can tell you that.

          Not because of one random act, but rather a pattern of continued unprofessional behavior, he will forever be labeled a knucklehead. He is what he is, and like Rodman, even if he can grab 20 boards, eventually the luster wears off and it is best if he just LEAVES. Who can defend a player like that as someone to look up to, let alone ADMIRE. He is EXACTLY the kind of person who should have to work a regular-joe job and should not be handed millions of dollars to play a stupid game. If you get lucky enough to get someone to pay you like that for so little meaningful contribution to life, at least be a professional. He can't even accomplish that. He is pretending to get handcuffed in front of a bunch of kids and paying customers when he is introduced.

          That is fabulous citizenry, I tell you....

          Now...I'm done. Defend him all you want; like him all you want. Doing so only adversely affects how you look to people who know better.
          AMEN...AMEN...and AMEN again !!!

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Heywoode! WORD!

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
              The question is whether we could have traded Jax for Dun straight up. That would have been a win for both teams. We could have traded Al for some others . GS was tired of Dun and we were tired of Jax. The big negative is Murphy who seems to not understand that basketball for a 6'11'' guy is a contact sport.
              Exactly....taking Murphy just to get Ike kills us for this deal.

              Someone should start up a thread asking if Ike is worth the effort to take on Troy's 50mil+ contract. Ike will have to turn out to be an All-Star in order for this deal to even be anything close to a wash.

              We got jobbed on this deal...real bad.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Exactly....taking Murphy just to get Ike kills us for this deal.

                Someone should start up a thread asking if Ike is worth the effort to take on Troy's 50mil+ contract. Ike will have to turn out to be an All-Star in order for this deal to even be anything close to a wash.

                We got jobbed on this deal...real bad.
                Yahoo, yeah, that's it start up ANOTHER thread about this kind of stuff .
                2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Originally posted by heywoode View Post

                  Not because of one random act, but rather a pattern of continued unprofessional behavior, he will forever be labeled a knucklehead. He is what he is, and like Rodman, even if he can grab 20 boards, eventually the luster wears off and it is best if he just LEAVES. Who can defend a player like that as someone to look up to, let alone ADMIRE. He is EXACTLY the kind of person who should have to work a regular-joe job and should not be handed millions of dollars to play a stupid game. If you get lucky enough to get someone to pay you like that for so little meaningful contribution to life, at least be a professional. He can't even accomplish that. He is pretending to get handcuffed in front of a bunch of kids and paying customers when he is introduced.

                  That is fabulous citizenry, I tell you....

                  Now...I'm done. Defend him all you want; like him all you want. Doing so only adversely affects how you look to people who know better.
                  Heywoode, I understand and agree with your distaste for Jack's lack of professionalism. I have no problem accepting the contradicition or ambiguity that he is. He is definitely not the only professional athlete of this nature. While I see both his positives and negatives, I do recognize that the situation here was such that moving him was necessary for both sides.

                  However, the manner in which you present above, particularly the bolded parts just dont' come off too well. Who's to say NBA players are luckier than anyone else? Who's to say average Joe job workers are not? Who's to say if a bloated income ensures happiness or prestige for the individual or in the eyes of society? Who's to say that higher degrees of professionalism should be demanded in fields of the highest pay? Seems you are tyring to make a point about morals or values with a statement that implies some questionable moral/value assertions.

                  As far as the second bolded point-and let me say I do not support Jack's behavior in any way as I think he is far from being a good role model-who are the people that know better? Knowing only that a person likes or defends Stephen Jackson should not form or decide one's overall appraisal of the individual. Getting to know someone beyond simply the Stephen Jackson issue before making judgment seems reasonable to me.
                  I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                  -Emiliano Zapata

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                    Heywoode,......
                    However, the manner in which you present above, particularly the bolded parts just dont' come off too well. Who's to say NBA players are luckier than anyone else? Who's to say average Joe job workers are not? Who's to say if a bloated income ensures happiness or prestige for the individual or in the eyes of society? Who's to say that higher degrees of professionalism should be demanded in fields of the highest pay? Seems you are tyring to make a point about morals or values with a statement that implies some questionable moral/value assertions.

                    As far as the second bolded point-and let me say I do not support Jack's behavior in any way as I think he is far from being a good role model-who are the people that know better? Knowing only that a person likes or defends Stephen Jackson should not form or decide one's overall appraisal of the individual. Getting to know someone beyond simply the Stephen Jackson issue before making judgment seems reasonable to me.

                    Well, NBA players ARE luckier than most people. They get paid my yearly salary or more (per game, or per MINUTE in some cases) to play a GAME. I understand the economics of it, and that if we could get 20,000 people to come and watch me sit at my desk and work 82 times a year, I might be able to command a similar salary, but the fact remains they have it very easy in life compared to the "average" person. Money doesn't guarantee happiness, but it sure puts a heck of a downpayment on it. If these guys AREN'T happy with millions of dollars and with being worshipped, imagine what their behavior would be if they WERE regular-joe's......That is the point I was trying to make.

                    Also, I WOULD expect a CEO to act a little more professional than the guys in the warehouse. That has nothing to do with morals/values. It is simply a matter of environment. Therein lies the problem. People who grew up poor and in rough neighborhoods (white or black) are suddenly handed the ultra-rich lifestyle and expected to behave as such. I realize it is difficult for them, and that I would have a much easier time adjusting since I grew up in middle-class, middle-America without such a harsh environment.

                    Given that level of understanding for what a lot of NBA players are thrust into, it seems the majority of them come around and can at least accomplish staying out of negative headlines, police blotters, and COURT. Jackson has proven that he cannot. He is not alone, and I've never claimed that he is. He is part of a percentage of NBA players that "spoils the barrel" so to speak, for the rest of them.

                    Now, the second paragraph of yours....

                    Anyone who doesn't defend Stephen Jackson (or any other knucklehead) is a person who "knows better". How hard is that to understand? Anyone who is willing to forgive Jackson's behavior simply because they think it isn't a big deal or that winning is more important has shown me a whole lot about their opinions. That may be the tip of the iceberg, but I can still tell it is an ICEBERG. While having those opinions doesn't tell me EVERYTHING about someone, I feel confident that it tells me enough.....Maybe it's just me...

                    Even if it is, I am comfortable with me. I would say that this is just my opinion, but given the replies to the same post you replied to, I would think that it ISN'T just me.



                    RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                      Originally posted by Big Smooth View Post
                      Maybe they improved their image, but putting a mediocre product on the floor isn't much of a draw either. If I had season tickets, I'd be thinking long and hard about nonrenewal regardless of the "image".

                      Smooth the key point in my arguement was Seth's statement.........

                      The trade has had zero positive impact up to this point.

                      I just disagree in the fact that I am aware some people DID renew their tickets because Stephen was traded. That means there was something positive that came out of the trade. More importantly on the money end of it, it did matter to some companies and while I'd like to pretend my measley upper level tickets are important it's still the big business purchase this franchise really relies on. Just ask the many drug reps who court the physicians by giving them the nice seats.
                      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

                        look at everyone making real long posts because they wish we were half as good as the warriors.
                        *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                          Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                          Well, NBA players ARE luckier than most people. They get paid my yearly salary or more (per game, or per MINUTE in some cases) to play a GAME. I understand the economics of it, and that if we could get 20,000 people to come and watch me sit at my desk and work 82 times a year, I might be able to command a similar salary, but the fact remains they have it very easy in life compared to the "average" person. Money doesn't guarantee happiness, but it sure puts a heck of a downpayment on it. If these guys AREN'T happy with millions of dollars and with being worshipped, imagine what their behavior would be if they WERE regular-joe's......That is the point I was trying to make.

                          Also, I WOULD expect a CEO to act a little more professional than the guys in the warehouse. That has nothing to do with morals/values. It is simply a matter of environment. Therein lies the problem. People who grew up poor and in rough neighborhoods (white or black) are suddenly handed the ultra-rich lifestyle and expected to behave as such. I realize it is difficult for them, and that I would have a much easier time adjusting since I grew up in middle-class, middle-America without such a harsh environment.

                          Given that level of understanding for what a lot of NBA players are thrust into, it seems the majority of them come around and can at least accomplish staying out of negative headlines, police blotters, and COURT. Jackson has proven that he cannot. He is not alone, and I've never claimed that he is. He is part of a percentage of NBA players that "spoils the barrel" so to speak, for the rest of them.

                          Now, the second paragraph of yours....

                          Anyone who doesn't defend Stephen Jackson (or any other knucklehead) is a person who "knows better". How hard is that to understand? Anyone who is willing to forgive Jackson's behavior simply because they think it isn't a big deal or that winning is more important has shown me a whole lot about their opinions. That may be the tip of the iceberg, but I can still tell it is an ICEBERG. While having those opinions doesn't tell me EVERYTHING about someone, I feel confident that it tells me enough.....Maybe it's just me...

                          Even if it is, I am comfortable with me. I would say that this is just my opinion, but given the replies to the same post you replied to, I would think that it ISN'T just me.
                          Definintely not just you. And your explanation is fair enough by me. The thing that often strikes me about the Jackson issue (and similar ones) is the conflating of high or higher standards of behavior, professionalism, etc. with the amount of money earned and also the notion that people earning exorbitant amounts should be happy/content based on that and being celebrities (worshiped by the public). Doesn't particularly appeal to me at all. Of course, some might wonder about the the soundness of that thinking. So who's to say. Thanks for the reply!
                          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                          -Emiliano Zapata

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                            Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
                            Definintely not just you. And your explanation is fair enough by me. The thing that often strikes me about the Jackson issue (and similar ones) is the conflating of high or higher standards of behavior, professionalism, etc. with the amount of money earned and also the notion that people earning exorbitant amounts should be happy/content based on that and being celebrities (worshiped by the public). Doesn't particularly appeal to me at all. Of course, some might wonder about the the soundness of that thinking. So who's to say. Thanks for the reply!
                            Yeuh...Glad we can discuss without being rude!

                            And, to another poster, I'm not worried about the Warriors being better than the Pacers....They're still the WARRIORS.....hehe



                            RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                              Originally posted by heywoode View Post
                              Well, NBA players ARE luckier than most people. They get paid my yearly salary or more (per game, or per MINUTE in some cases) to play a GAME. I understand the economics of it, and that if we could get 20,000 people to come and watch me sit at my desk and work 82 times a year, I might be able to command a similar salary, but the fact remains they have it very easy in life compared to the "average" person. Money doesn't guarantee happiness, but it sure puts a heck of a downpayment on it. If these guys AREN'T happy with millions of dollars and with being worshipped, imagine what their behavior would be if they WERE regular-joe's......That is the point I was trying to make.

                              Also, I WOULD expect a CEO to act a little more professional than the guys in the warehouse. That has nothing to do with morals/values. It is simply a matter of environment. Therein lies the problem. People who grew up poor and in rough neighborhoods (white or black) are suddenly handed the ultra-rich lifestyle and expected to behave as such. I realize it is difficult for them, and that I would have a much easier time adjusting since I grew up in middle-class, middle-America without such a harsh environment.

                              Given that level of understanding for what a lot of NBA players are thrust into, it seems the majority of them come around and can at least accomplish staying out of negative headlines, police blotters, and COURT. Jackson has proven that he cannot. He is not alone, and I've never claimed that he is. He is part of a percentage of NBA players that "spoils the barrel" so to speak, for the rest of them.

                              Now, the second paragraph of yours....

                              Anyone who doesn't defend Stephen Jackson (or any other knucklehead) is a person who "knows better". How hard is that to understand? Anyone who is willing to forgive Jackson's behavior simply because they think it isn't a big deal or that winning is more important has shown me a whole lot about their opinions. That may be the tip of the iceberg, but I can still tell it is an ICEBERG. While having those opinions doesn't tell me EVERYTHING about someone, I feel confident that it tells me enough.....Maybe it's just me...

                              Even if it is, I am comfortable with me. I would say that this is just my opinion, but given the replies to the same post you replied to, I would think that it ISN'T just me.
                              So Jack was luckier than you when he was 13? I didn't have it all that great myself, but I had it better than that. This kind of "hate the rich" moral pontification really irritates me, it's so narcissitic and self-congratulating. The dude built a school for kids in a poor area of his hometown, did you ever do that?

                              I know plenty of average joe's with regular jobs who go out to bars, get drunk and start fights. Sometimes they get in fights over sports discussions even. In fact many stats trend towards more violent behavior among people with less money, people with regular jobs. You just don't read about them because no one cares.


                              The guy doesn't control his temper enough. And even with that it's only during sports or when other people start fights with him. NO ACCOUNT of Rio or the Palace have Jackson starting it. Did he finish it the right way? No. But getting physical with people that threaten you physically isn't exactly anti-human nature, especially with men.

                              People keep assigning him this long list of non-game emotional outbursts. Which ones are those? Before Rio when was he busted dealing drugs, getting in a bar fight, cheating on his taxes, embezzling city money....

                              Luckily regular job people have ever done those things, and certainly no proper, professional people have.


                              How many times must I repeat Hilbert's name. He's got the #1 best pair of seats to every Pacers game. He's got enough money to buy Jack 10 times over. How'd he finish up at Conseco and who's his wife again? (6th wife btw)

                              The former Conseco CEO was once the highest paid executive in America at over $100 million a year. Earlier the same judge ruled that Hilbert must repay $72 million to Conseco for interest on unpaid loans.
                              Here's one source for that, but it's from the AP feed I believe.
                              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282536/posts
                              The case concerns interest Conseco paid on Hilbert's behalf on more than $162 million in company-backed loans he used to buy Conseco stock. Hilbert has repaid little of the more than $240 million in principal and interest he allegedly owes.


                              The loan program was created in 1996 at the direction of Hilbert, who was Conseco's chairman and chief executive until 2000. Conseco, since emerging from bankruptcy reorganization in 2003, has tried to recover the full debt of only the largest 11 borrowers.
                              http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2...urts_tomi.html

                              Not a freaking peep is said about this by anyone but me. That makes most of the moral outrage bunch extremely hypocritical.



                              It's not a pro-Jack thing, it's an anti-"I'm so offended, he's so evil" stance. It's disgusting and disingenuine.

                              BTW, if you want morality questions then maybe do a search on LARRY BIRD and his daughter.

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                                I'm offended by Jack. And while "evil" is a strong word, I think the guy has very serious problems with anger management and self control and I don't want his ticking time-bomb *** anywhere near our franchise.

                                THAT'S GENUINE AND LEGITIMATE.

                                The man has problems and outright REFUSES to own up to them. Buh-bye, Jack. Good riddance.
                                “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

                                Working...
                                X