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

Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
    That cartoon was not done by a forensic specialists and there are numerous errors in it. This includes the area of entrance and exit wounds on Kennedy. The Governeror and his wife swore for the rest of their lives that the governor was not hit by the same shot as Kennedy but that he was turning around and saw the President with his hands on his throat before he was hit. The video of the shooting also shows this.......
    I believe it to be a single shooter but an expert. I believe he was experiencing what we call tilt fire (has to do witj a cold barrel in windy conditions) causes his shots to be a little off and on what we call his "cold shot" first shot (most inaccurate for a pro) his shots after that we were much more accurate. The bullets weren't anything special and were pretty moveable.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

      Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
      I believe it to be a single shooter but an expert. I believe he was experiencing what we call tilt fire (has to do witj a cold barrel in windy conditions) causes his shots to be a little off and on what we call his "cold shot" first shot (most inaccurate for a pro) his shots after that we were much more accurate. The bullets weren't anything special and were pretty moveable.
      Acoustic evidence says the last shot game from the grassy knoll...... Also, if there is no single bullet fact (and there is not), there is a conspiracy. It means there had to be at least two shooters which we already know....

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

        R. Lee Ermey in full Metal Jacket says it was Oswald. That's good enough for me.
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
          Acoustic evidence says the last shot game from the grassy knoll...... Also, if there is no single bullet fact (and there is not), there is a conspiracy. It means there had to be at least two shooters which we already know....
          O I believe there is a conspiracy, it was a pro but acoustic evidence isn't a definitive science it's a theory. Surprise it wasn't from a military type rifle or could it have?!?? The rounds are interchangeable.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

            I believe that the Zapruder film is the most horrifying thing I have ever seen. Jackie scrambling to pick up pieces of his brain was particularly jarring.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I believe that the Zapruder film is the most horrifying thing I have ever seen. Jackie scrambling to pick up pieces of his brain was particularly jarring.
              I hope you noted that she was picking up pieces of bone from the trunk of the car. That isn't possible with a shot from the right rear......

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by OlBlu View Post
                I hope you noted that she was picking up pieces of bone from the trunk of the car. That isn't possible with a shot from the right rear......
                Bullet ricochet was quite common back then...we now regularly depleted uranium to avoid these issues.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                  Originally posted by Dgreenwell3 View Post
                  Bullet ricochet was quite common back then...we now regularly depleted uranium to avoid these issues.
                  Yes, but it would have had to hit something in the car and there would be a new entrance wound to explain.....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                    Guess I should make it official...

                    Lone gunman and it was Lee Harvey Oswald. The job at the School Book Depository was only temporary and the man who hired Oswald had no affiliation with the mafia, Cubans, Russians, or LBJ supporters. Just by bad fate did Oswald get hired and had the opportunity to be in a perfect position for the shooting. I believe history points out the route for Kennedy through Dallas wasn't even known until a week before the assassination. So that's pretty good that evil forces were able to do their best in getting Oswald hired there slightly over a month before the shooting and use their clairvoyant skills to know the parade route would eventually take the President past the buidling. I don't buy it.

                    Simply Oswald had a skewed view of the United States, had a problem getting a job, knew this job was short, and was pissed off at the world. When you see some of the venom displayed in today's politics this doesn't surprise me.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                      Originally posted by RWB View Post
                      Guess I should make it official...

                      Lone gunman and it was Lee Harvey Oswald. The job at the School Book Depository was only temporary and the man who hired Oswald had no affiliation with the mafia, Cubans, Russians, or LBJ supporters. Just by bad fate did Oswald get hired and had the opportunity to be in a perfect position for the shooting. I believe history points out the route for Kennedy through Dallas wasn't even known until a week before the assassination. So that's pretty good that evil forces were able to do their best in getting Oswald hired there slightly over a month before the shooting and use their clairvoyant skills to know the parade route would eventually take the President past the buidling. I don't buy it.

                      Simply Oswald had a skewed view of the United States, had a problem getting a job, knew this job was short, and was pissed off at the world. When you see some of the venom displayed in today's politics this doesn't surprise me.
                      There were plans to kill Kennedy in other cities including Miami. There may have been many Oswalds (Patsies) set up around Dallas and they used LHO because he was working in the TSBD. Or, the route may have been changed to accomodate where the assassination was to take place. Many protocols were brokern by picking that route. The car had to slow more than was allowed to make the corner. The roofs and open windows on the route were not checked. The evidence was destroyed or tampered with. The real question is whether LHO fired any shots at all. We know from the acoustic evidence (and that is not a theory but accepted in courts) that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll. The films verify from JFK's reaction that this is where the shot came from. The SS stole the body when the autopsy should have been done in Dallas by law. Dallas had an expert team available. The autopsy performed on JFK was less that would be given to a street person. Evidence is missing from that autopsy and there are many claims that the photos were doctored. Certainly, they did not reflect the wounds that the doctors in Dallas recalled....... Conspiracy. Not to say that LHO was not involved but he didn't act alone. Remember, he was a terrible shot. He missed General Walker from 100 feet and Walker was stationary in a chair at the time. The Carcano was a junk weapon. No one could have hit anything using the scope. It had to be shimmed by an expert to get it zero'd in. The rifle was also not zero'd in on the metal sights. It would have shot high and to the right the way it was found. That is why no expert could ever use that rifle to duplicate the shooting. Most of them could not even work the bolt action quickly enough without aiming at all.......

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                        Originally posted by cdash View Post
                        I believe that the Zapruder film is the most horrifying thing I have ever seen. Jackie scrambling to pick up pieces of his brain was particularly jarring.
                        We had an elective in my junior high that I took called "History Mysteries" where we must have watched the Zapruder film 100 times. Really creepy.

                        Anyway, I don't really know what happened that day, but I've always found it hard to believe that the government could cover something like this up. Too many inept individuals, but it could have been a conspiracy outside of the government for sure. Do I know that LHO was a lone gunman? A patsy? Etc? No, but I do think it's hard to believe it was just a disgruntled dude in a libaray who was a really good shot. Something else was going on that day, just don't think the government was behind it. However pinning it on one guy LHO is certainly less messy for everyone involved and IMO was probably viewed as the easiest way for the country to move on. If you had pinned on the mob, the Cubans, Russians, whatever it would have become an even bigger national crisis, pinning it on one disgruntled individual made it cleaner, so in that sense I do think the government may have done something on that end, but I don't believe they were behind the planning or execution.
                        Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-04-2013, 01:37 PM.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                          Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                          We had an elective in my junior high that I took called "History Mysteries" where we must have watched the Zapruder film 100 times. Really creepy.

                          Anyway, I don't really know what happened that day, but I've always found it hard to believe that the government could cover something like this up. Too many inept individuals, but it could have been a conspiracy outside of the government for sure. Do I know that LHO was a lone gunman? A patsy? Etc? No, but I do think it's hard to believe it was just a disgruntled dude in a libaray who was a really good shot. Something else was going on that day, just don't think the government was behind it. However pinning it on one guy LHO is certainly less messy for everyone involved and IMO was probably viewed as the easiest way for the country to move on. If you had pinned on the mob, the Cubans, Russians, whatever it would have become an even bigger national crisis, pinning it on one disgruntled individual made it cleaner, so in that sense I do think the government may have done something on that end, but I don't believe they were behind the planning or execution.
                          I agree with you but they were behind the cover-up for national security reasons.....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                            Dude, we can't keep half of our national security issue secrets a secret.

                            The only way to Keep a secret is to make sure you are the only one who knows it and everyone else who may know is dead. sorry I don't buy a conspiracy where the government has to cover so much up

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              Dude, we can't keep half of our national security issue secrets a secret.

                              The only way to Keep a secret is to make sure you are the only one who knows it and everyone else who may know is dead. sorry I don't buy a conspiracy where the government has to cover so much up
                              They have been exposed doing it over and over again. The records are set to be released in 2017. Do you really think the entire records will be released? It only takes a small group within the government to cover anything up. We finally found out who deep throat was even though three people knew the truth. I don't think you would pry a secret out of the CIA. I don't think the government was in on the assassination but they were certainly in on the cover-up. Earl Warren was given direct orders to find LHO was the lone assassin for national security reasons (preventing WWIII).

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Do you believe that the assassination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy or lone gunman...

                                This debate has brought back so many memories of my parents arguing with the cousins, aunts, and uncles at the family thanksgiving. I think they debated this for 5 thanksgivings in a row. I just played with my GI Joes and snuck in the kitchen and eat all the pumpkin pie I wanted.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X