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

Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

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

  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Just stop. Everytime you write something else, you just dig your hole deeper.


    http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content...ic-walk-again/

    Oh, and check out the date. It's been FOUR YEARS ago.
    As far as I know there is no clinically "proven" therapy for nerve regeneration using stem cells.

    Here is a quote from a expert about Manning and his stem cell therapy.

    Indeed, Dr. Lawrence Goldstein, director of the University of California-San Diego Stem Cell Program, said he was unaware of any stem cell approach that is proven to help “any sort of spinal issue.

    “There are many proposed therapies that are being tested in clinical trials, and there are more to come,” Goldstein said in an email. “But in the absence of reliable evidence, it is impossible to know whether the ‘treatment’ will make Manning better or worse or merely financially poorer.”
    Fact is reliable evidence is hard to show especially in humans as you need a way to track the cells that are repairing the damage and even then those methods can lead to false data and misinterepretation.

    Since86, you keep bringing up the Hsu study but Manning wouldn't even qualify as a test subject for that study because his injury was too severe and he already had multiple operations.

    Don't get me wrong I think Manning will be back on the field and I agree with Hsu quote but he doesn't say he will be back to 100%.

    At what level will he be back no one knows but I hope he atleast works with Irsay and restructuring his contract. If he doesn't then I say Manning is the one not being very loyal as he was paid to 26 million last year to hold a clip board.

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

      Originally posted by Really? View Post
      As long as he turns into atleast a Big Ben type player we should be cool... With Pagano as HC I think we will really build a strong defense. If Luck does not get back there and have a bunch of turnovers then we should be fine in the future.
      Uh, Big Ben is a star and Luck will be hard pressed to achieve what Ben has in his career...... Well, look on the bright side, at least this didn't happen when Jamarkus Russell was the second coming..... Luck could just as easily be a Russell, a Leaf, a Carr and any number of top draft choices...... 50-50 at best..... I think Manning is a lot better shot than that even with this injury. It seems clear to me that Peyton is close to 100% right now and certainly will be by training camp. I guess it all comes down to what you want. You can do a complete rebuild with Luck and be a bottom feeder for the next five or six years. Or, you could trade the rights to Luck for lots of picks to shore the Colts up for many years, go with a proven Peyton Manning and win while you rebuild and perhaps even compete for a Superbowl........ Not much of a choice in my eyes......

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

        Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
        Uh, Big Ben is a star and Luck will be hard pressed to achieve what Ben has in his career...... Well, look on the bright side, at least this didn't happen when Jamarkus Russell was the second coming..... Luck could just as easily be a Russell, a Leaf, a Carr and any number of top draft choices...... 50-50 at best..... I think Manning is a lot better shot than that even with this injury. It seems clear to me that Peyton is close to 100% right now and certainly will be by training camp. I guess it all comes down to what you want. You can do a complete rebuild with Luck and be a bottom feeder for the next five or six years. Or, you could trade the rights to Luck for lots of picks to shore the Colts up for many years, go with a proven Peyton Manning and win while you rebuild and perhaps even compete for a Superbowl........ Not much of a choice in my eyes......
        Big Ben is cool, never really put up terrific numbers, just made plays. He has been fairly consistent which is a good thing, but I give his defense more credit for the championships than I do him.

        I think you are really off bass with Russell, Leaf and Carr when comparing them to Luck. Luck has/had consistently show a lot more than all those 3 every year he was in college.

        I do like Peyton and would like him back possibly, but the thing is no matter what we are going to be in a bad situation this year. There is no way you bring back Peyton without bringing back some of the key pieces around him, Clark, Wayne, Addai. All of these guys are top targets and all are declining in play and could easily be cut. If Peyton is only around a couple of years then I feel he will not be able to win with this group. We won't really have tons of money to bring in the talent he will need around him to get another ring here. Add the fact that we are installing a all new defense this will be a bumpy path for atleast a year or 2.

        By bringing in Luck we acknowledge that we are rebuilding, and give it about a 2-3 year time before we expect to really become contenders, it may happen faster than that but that is about where I am thinking. I think Luck's bottom will be Matt Stafford and I am okay with that, it took him about 2.5 years to get where I would like him to be, I think it will take Luck about the same depending on what weapons he gets put around him.

        At times I am kind of confused on what I would like, everyone loves Peyton, but having him here would be a waste of the rest of his career I believe, yes Luck could gain a lot from him, but he will learn a lot with game experience as well, and grow to become his own person.

        Although I want Peyton back as a Colt, I realize that it would not be good for this organization or Peyton, we did not really set up well for the transition to life after Peyton and now we will have to deal with it.

        If Luck has a bad year like Peyton did to start out oh well. We have a young line that will be growing, so then we can go ahead and add offensive weapons around him with top picks in the draft... this kid Robert Woods from USC is pretty good.
        Why so SERIOUS

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
          Just stop. Everytime you write something else, you just dig your hole deeper.


          http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content...ic-walk-again/

          Oh, and check out the date. It's been FOUR YEARS ago.
          I think Gamble 1 (post 166) said it best so I don't have to repeat what he said but no there is no cure as yet for paralysis which is why there are still so many wheel chair bound quads.

          Comment


          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            As far as I know there is no clinically "proven" therapy for nerve regeneration using stem cells.

            Here is a quote from a expert about Manning and his stem cell therapy.
            That's not the point I was making. My point was that he's talking out of his *** continually.

            Let's remember what started this portion of the conversation.

            "We don't know what will happen." Full agree'd. And then in his very next post.

            "Manning will never return to 100%."

            If you don't know what will happen, then you shouldn't be saying what won't happen. It's a pretty blantant contradiction. And since then, he's only trying to qualify his contradiction to make it seem like he's on the right track.



            Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
            Fact is reliable evidence is hard to show especially in humans as you need a way to track the cells that are repairing the damage and even then those methods can lead to false data and misinterepretation.

            Since86, you keep bringing up the Hsu study but Manning wouldn't even qualify as a test subject for that study because his injury was too severe and he already had multiple operations.
            Now hold on....

            Peyton wouldn't be included in the study, because his injury was too severe? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of the study.... It's not about how severe the injury's are, it's about what was the best course of action to take when a player IS injured.

            The study is a pretty basic one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20714275
            Outcomes following nonoperative and operative treatment for cervical disc herniations in National Football League athletes.
            That's the title of the study. That's it.

            CONCLUSION:
            The data in this study suggest that players have higher return-to-play rates and longer careers after operative treatment than players treated with nonoperative means. Although confounding variables such as concomitant cervical stenosis could have affected these data, these performance-based outcomes after surgical treatment for CDH are better than previously thought. Defensive backs have a poorer prognosis after CDH compared with players of all other positions.
            The highlighted is/was Peyton's problem. Or atleast the suspected problem.
            Last edited by Since86; 03-05-2012, 03:12 PM.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

              Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
              If you draft Luck and he does not become a star, the franchise is damaged for the next 15 years.....

              That's just simply not true. We drafted Jeff George in 1990 and he was obviously a bust. Yet in 1995 we were in the AFC Championship game with a different QB. In 1998 we were able to draft Manning.

              Obviously Luck not panning out (whenever he plays) wouldn't be a good thing. But to say it would set the franchise back FIFTEEN years is a bit much, IMO. If Luck was a bust then that would presumably mean that our team would be bad with him which would then mean that we would be getting high draft picks. You always have a chance to get better if you have competent management.

              On a side note, it's pretty interesting that our franchise has had 3 number 1 picks in 23 years with big name QBs on the board. That's something most franchises never get a shot at.

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                I think Gamble 1 (post 166) said it best so I don't have to repeat what he said but no there is no cure as yet for paralysis which is why there are still so many wheel chair bound quads.
                Did I say there was a cure? No. You said they cannot renegerate nerves. If you would have actually followed the damn link I provided, which is starting to be a pretty big trend with you, you would have read this little gem.

                Three years ago at a high school graduation party, a diving accident left Paul a quadriplegic. The former champion swimmer for Canandaigua went to Portugal for an experimental surgery last year. They took stem cells from his nose and placed them in his neck in hopes of repairing his injured spinal cord. Slowly, Paul is getting the feeling back in his hands and legs.
                http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content...ic-walk-again/

                Saying there isn't a cure, right now, would be correct. Saying they can't regenerate nerves, right now, is false.



                Not to mention that you've just said that regenerative technologies has nothing to do with regenerating nerves. The whole ****ing point of regenerative research is to do just that.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                  Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                  That's not the point I was making. My point was that he's talking out of his *** continually.

                  Let's remember what started this portion of the conversation.

                  "We don't know what will happen." Full agree'd. And then in his very next post.

                  "Manning will never return to 100%."

                  If you don't know what will happen, then you shouldn't be saying what won't happen. It's a pretty blantant contradiction. And since then, he's only trying to qualify his contradiction to make it seem like he's on the right track.





                  Now hold on....

                  Peyton wouldn't be included in the study, because his injury was too severe? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of the study.... It's not about how severe the injury's are, it's about what was the best course of action to take when a player IS injured.

                  The study is a pretty basic one.

                  That's the title of the study. That's it.



                  The highlighted is/was Peyton's problem. Or atleast the suspected problem.
                  From what I have read Manning had a bulging disc and from the methods and material section that would have excluded him and the other surgeries.

                  Inclusion criteria were NFL players reported with a "disc herniation" or "herniated disc" in the neck or cervical spine, symptoms including upper extremity radiculopathy, on the active roster of an NFL team at the time of injury, had a confirmed treatment plan listed from at least 2 different independent sources, and were listed on at least 1 weekly injury report. Players with conflicting medical information from different sources, diagnosed with a "bulging disc," "protruding disc," "neck strain," "cervical strain," "spinal cord injury," or "fracture" were excluded.
                  Scientific studies tend to simplify criteria for who is in the study and who isn't and multiple surgeries before the actual study would only complicate matters and make it harder to publish in a good journal (basically is the result found do to the fusion, microdissection or the stem cell therapy). Any reviewer of that article would criticize a inclusion criteria that would allow Manning apart of that study. I can find the actual quote but its in the paper or one of his interviews where he says that any previous surgeries done on a player were excluded.


                  Here is the quote from SI about the bulging disc.

                  While it cannot be determined exactly when the unreported procedure on Manning's neck took place, it was at some point after his May 23 surgery in Chicago to correct a bulging disk

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                    The quarterbacks in my study did quite well after this particular surgery that Peyton Manning had.
                    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...P11_hot_topics

                    I can't get anymore straight forward than that. Not to mention that the NFL turned to Dr. Hsu to get his opinion.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Did I say there was a cure? No. You said they cannot renegerate nerves. If you would have actually followed the damn link I provided, which is starting to be a pretty big trend with you, you would have read this little gem.


                      http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content...ic-walk-again/

                      Saying there isn't a cure, right now, would be correct. Saying they can't regenerate nerves, right now, is false.



                      Not to mention that you've just said that regenerative technologies has nothing to do with regenerating nerves. The whole ****ing point of regenerative research is to do just that.
                      No there is a lot more to regenerative research than nerves, for example bone. That is a huge field and then there is regenerative research relating to the heart to repair damage caused by heart attacks, and then there is regenerative research related to eyes caused by macular degeneration, and regenerative research related to liver damage and kidney damage so that people don't need kidney transplants and dialysis. Do you get the point now?
                      They do not regenerate nerves regardless of what you might find on the internet which might I remind you is not considered a scientific source of information. If you want science go to real journals and not some fly by night internet article. Anyone can write any nonsense on the internet. Do you have a reference as to who did the work, how reputable the information is or not? You don't get science form the internet. OK. No scientist publishes anything in a magazine or newspaper article. At least cite an article that has a link to a journal where you can see the research evidence. Otherwise your citations are equivalent to cancer cures in third world countries by quacks.
                      Last edited by speakout4; 03-05-2012, 04:17 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                        Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                        http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...P11_hot_topics

                        I can't get anymore straight forward than that. Not to mention that the NFL turned to Dr. Hsu to get his opinion.
                        He studied 7 or 8 NFL quarterbacks and 4 of them had the surgery. Thats not a lot to go on and he also says this..

                        I don't know Peyton Manning's case specifically
                        And from the paper..
                        The position of quarterback was a positive predictor for career length after treatment; however, this could be explained by longer careers for quarterbacks in general
                        I made this point before and I will make it again. This was a messy study and his statiistical anaylsis was sloppy at best which makes it hard interpret. Its not like he performed the surgeries and followed all 99 cases. He used what medical records he had and news articles and he admits that this could have skewed things.

                        Fact is age is a factor, condition of injury is a factor in which case Manning was more than likley worse if he was initially injuried in 2006. He wouldn't have been able to even partake in the study but I understand that QB's tend to fair better and that makes sense to me.

                        I fully expect him to be back in the NFL but I wouldn't say he has a good shot at being 100%.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                          I understand that. I'm not arguing Peyton WILL be 100%.

                          I'm arguing the absurdity of saying "we don't know what will happen" and then saying "but Peyton will never be 100% again." Not only is it down right stupid to argue on principle, it also just comletely ignores the fact that people have, and will continue, fully recovered from this type of injury and surgery.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                            No there is a lot more to regenerative research than nerves, for example bone. That is a huge field and then there is regenerative research relating to the heart to repair damage caused by heart attacks, and then there is regenerative research related to eyes caused by macular degeneration, and regenerative research related to liver damage and kidney damage so that people don't need kidney transplants and dialysis. Do you get the point now?
                            They do not regenerate nerves regardless of what you might find on the internet which might I remind you is not considered a scientific source of information. If you want science go to real journals and not some fly by night internet article. Anyone can write any nonsense on the internet. Do you have a reference as to who did the work, how reputable the information is or not? You don't get science form the internet. OK. No scientist publishes anything in a magazine or newspaper article. At least cite an article that has a link to a journal where you can see the research evidence. Otherwise your citations are equivalent to cancer cures in third world countries by quacks.
                            I'll save Since86 some time and post this.. ITs more than likely Dr Carlos Lima and here is an article.

                            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1864811/

                            You can look up the citations to learn more but he doesn't have a lot of publications personally but MSCells have been studied by others.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                              I wasn't even going to address it. I've wasted more than enough time leading the horse to water. If he doesn't want to drink, then that's on him.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay: Talking regularly with Manning about staying with team.

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                I wasn't even going to address it. I've wasted more than enough time leading the horse to water. If he doesn't want to drink, then that's on him.
                                Not sure if coincidence, or bc his avy is a horse
                                I Bleed Blue

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X