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

My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

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

  • #61
    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

    Originally posted by foretaz
    i said i was done....and i apologize....but this has to be one of the most stupid comments i have ever seen....

    u appear to have watched the movie hoosiers far too many times....its the players with the most talent that end up being the greatest players....here...let me help u.....magic, jordan, bird, jabbar, chamberlain, erving, stockton, malone

    if u dont think these are some of the most talented players to ever play the game....then i cant help u....they all had unbelievable talent and gifts when it came to basketball.....

    u can take eddie gill and send him to college for fifty years...it doesnt matter....i suppose u take the child genius and make him go thru all of high school...just because hes not old enuff to go to college...nevermind the fact hes smart enuff...

    ur ignoring the obvious....talent is first and foremost....if u dont have talent, ur not making it to the nba....period...if u believe anything else...then,,,im sorrry...ur nuts...

    like i said...this isnt high school...and its not 'hoosiers'
    HEY! you forgot Spencer Haywood! the first "hardship case"

    But ofcourse, he wasn't ready for the "big show", he only became the leading scorer in his rookie year averaging 30 pts pg
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

      Originally posted by able
      There is no major flaw in that theory, you carefully took out the base premises for it and decide to ignore facts:

      1. the guaranteed term for the rookie contracts goes down to 2 years.
      That's a CBA discussion. That has nothing to do with whether or not kids will be able to enter the league straight out of HS.

      Originally posted by able
      2. bet on the 2nd round being less and less interesting, players there will be shipped off to the nbdl for (as reported last night on tv) 50K yearly salaries.
      As opposed to now, when they're simply cut and the league has no salary obligation to them at all. I don't agree with your premise that the 2nd round will somehow be less and less interesting, though. Why would that be?

      Originally posted by able
      3. HS players that are no longer eligible for the draft will have to do somewhere, in a lot of cases college is not an option (nor advisable anyway) and therefore they will be offered a place in the nbdl (min contract 2 years) @ 50 thousand dollar. savings on that?
      Again, the owners will STILL be paying WHOEVER they draft. They aren't saving money, they're just not spending their money on unproven commodities. Please stop with the assumption that if they're not paying the HS'er, they're somehow pocketing that money.

      Originally posted by able
      If you want to sink a theory filled with fact, come with facts, not assumptions.
      I've made no assumptions.

      Originally posted by able
      The fact you agree is found in the grounds that it is not "decent" for these young kids who have proven nothing except that they excel in talent for a sport, to get millions of dollars, henceforth you support the owners "using" these same youngsters for a rgeatly discounted pay, so the "can prove themselves".
      Since when is proving oneself before being given millions of dollars such a bad thing? I think your tune might change just a tad if you were paying these kids out of your own pocket. You're pretty cavalier with other people's money, I wonder how you'd feel if it was your money we were talking about.

      Originally posted by able
      You know what? being drafted is proof.
      It's proof of nothing, that's why the league has fought to force these youngsters to prove themselves BEFORE they enter the league. At least a little more than submitting their HS resume.

      Oh, and the player's union has agreed, as well. Gee, you think some of the league veterans might feel the same way the owners and I do?

      Yeah, yeah, they're all just jealous.......

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

        Originally posted by A-Train
        Oh, and the player's union has agreed, as well. Gee, you think some of the league veterans don't feel the same way the owners and I do?

        Yeah, yeah, they're all just jealous.......
        oh...now theres a surprise noone saw coming....veterans agreeing to keep more talented players out of the league so they can continue to collect their grossly inflated wage....

        talk about not earning something....

        and since when did college ball become the ultimate proving ground?????

        and one year is suddenly gonna make them worthy?????

        bottom line is if they are more talented than a fair chunk of the current players there is no reason to keep them out...especially an age reason...

        the fact that owners conspire with current employees to do so doesnt make it any more viable....and theyre one court case away from having that proven to them...unlike the nfl , the nba will lose in court...

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

          Originally posted by A-Train

          Since when is proving oneself before being given millions of dollars such a bad thing? I think your tune might change just a tad if you were paying these kids out of your own pocket. You're pretty cavalier with other people's money, I wonder how you'd feel if it was your money we were talking about.



          It's proof of nothing, that's why the league has fought to force these youngsters to prove themselves BEFORE they enter the league. At least a little more than submitting their HS resume.

          Oh, and the player's union has agreed, as well. Gee, you think some of the league veterans might feel the same way the owners and I do?

          Yeah, yeah, they're all just jealous.......
          One day you will have to deliver your resume, I hope that you have some talent, because on your resume alone you will not have your payday.

          As far as the vets being in favour of this?
          You asking an alcoholic if he wants another drink?

          Your laughter shows the general quality (contentwise) of your post and does not hide your lack of fundamental arguments
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

          If you've done 6 impossible things today?
          Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

            Originally posted by able
            Your laughter shows the general quality (contentwise) of your post and does not hide your lack of fundamental arguments
            And that, my friend, is your opinion. I appreciate the spirited debate.

            Too bad the league and the player's union both agree with me, but hey.... win some and lose some.

            You still never answered my question as to your thoughts on MLB and the NFL.

            Also, you never reconciled the fact that the owners will pay out the same amount of money regardless of an age limit rule.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

              Originally posted by A-Train
              And that, my friend, is your opinion. I appreciate the spirited debate.

              Too bad the league and the player's union both agree with me, but hey.... win some and lose some.

              You still never answered my question as to your thoughts on MLB and the NFL.
              The MLB and NFL are of no interest to me. If you commit jump of a cliff, I will not follow suit.
              Originally posted by A-Train
              Also, you never reconciled the fact that the owners will pay out the same amount of money regardless of an age limit rule.
              I did give you a perfect reason that such is not true, but you choose to ignore that.

              Also the fact that he age limit is introduced does not mean that the league and hte players agree, in negotiations you give and take, it just means that it did not have enough priority to "break" negotiations over.
              So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

              If you've done 6 impossible things today?
              Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                Originally posted by A-Train
                And that, my friend, is your opinion. I appreciate the spirited debate.

                Too bad the league and the player's union both agree with me, but hey.... win some and lose some.

                You still never answered my question as to your thoughts on MLB and the NFL.

                Also, you never reconciled the fact that the owners will pay out the same amount of money regardless of an age limit rule.

                im sure drug dealers and drug users would agree with u regarding drug legalization...not sure the rationale behind such a statement...having someone agree with u hardly makes it right....

                MLB has no age limit rules....they draft players right out of high school as well...and nothing prevents those players from playing in the big leagues....

                NFL there is a physicality issue....but that is soon to be overturned.....it was overturned last year and only on appeal was it changed back....and the only reason for this was the fact that they ruled the players union agreed to it, so it must be ok....nevermind, u have to be a player in the league to be a member of the union...thereby not allowing youngsters in the union and the league both...

                and as we discussed earlier...what is the common response going to be from veterans who would like to continue to collect a check when asked if younger more talented players should be let into the league....shock shock...they say theyre not ready....imagine that...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                  Originally posted by foretaz
                  i said i was done....and i apologize....but this has to be one of the most stupid comments i have ever seen....

                  u appear to have watched the movie hoosiers far too many times....its the players with the most talent that end up being the greatest players....here...let me help u.....magic, jordan, bird, jabbar, chamberlain, erving, stockton, malone

                  if u dont think these are some of the most talented players to ever play the game....then i cant help u....they all had unbelievable talent and gifts when it came to basketball.....

                  u can take eddie gill and send him to college for fifty years...it doesnt matter....i suppose u take the child genius and make him go thru all of high school...just because hes not old enuff to go to college...nevermind the fact hes smart enuff...

                  ur ignoring the obvious....talent is first and foremost....if u dont have talent, ur not making it to the nba....period...if u believe anything else...then,,,im sorrry...ur nuts...

                  like i said...this isnt high school...and its not 'hoosiers'
                  Reading is fundamental. Everyone in the NBA has talent and athleticism to varying degrees. I said that, you chose to ignore it or simply can't read at a sufficient level.

                  Talent alone does not make the player. Until you realize that, there's nothing further to discuss with you.
                  Can we get a new color commentator please?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                    Originally posted by foretaz

                    MLB has no age limit rules....they draft players right out of high school as well...and nothing prevents those players from playing in the big leagues....
                    My initial question had to do with MLB owners having the ability to send unproven talent to the minor leagues where they pay them a fraction of a major league salary until such time that the player has proven they belong in the "bigs".

                    If NBA owners eventually have that same ability with the NBDL as a minor league, is that a bad thing?

                    able seemed to think it was borderline criminal that NBA owners would have a place to put unproven players at a lesser salary until they've proven they belong with the big boys.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                      Originally posted by foretaz

                      im sure drug dealers and drug users would agree with u regarding drug legalization...not sure the rationale behind such a statement...having someone agree with u hardly makes it right....

                      MLB has no age limit rules....they draft players right out of high school as well...and nothing prevents those players from playing in the big leagues....

                      NFL there is a physicality issue....but that is soon to be overturned.....it was overturned last year and only on appeal was it changed back....and the only reason for this was the fact that they ruled the players union agreed to it, so it must be ok....nevermind, u have to be a player in the league to be a member of the union...thereby not allowing youngsters in the union and the league both...

                      and as we discussed earlier...what is the common response going to be from veterans who would like to continue to collect a check when asked if younger more talented players should be let into the league....shock shock...they say theyre not ready....imagine that...
                      Sorry, I thought I was done but read this and was left shaking my head in disbelief. The last thing a drug dealer would want would be for drugs to be legalized. Any idea why they can command such a high price for them? Because you can't go get them at Wal-Mart. Legalize them, the supply increases and the premium price goes down. All in all, not a very intelligent comparison at all.
                      Can we get a new color commentator please?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                        Originally posted by A-Train
                        My initial question had to do with MLB owners having the ability to send unproven talent to the minor leagues where they pay them a fraction of a major league salary until such time that the player has proven they belong in the "bigs".

                        If NBA owners eventually have that same ability with the NBDL as a minor league, is that a bad thing?

                        able seemed to think it was borderline criminal that NBA owners would have a place to put unproven players at a lesser salary until they've proven they belong with the big boys.
                        seems to me u miss the whole concept of what the draft is....

                        theres a huge talent pool....a few high schoolers, some international players, and college players....all of different ages....

                        a teams scouting department does evaluations on all these prospects and concludes which ones make the most sense....plusses and minuses....

                        noone holds a gun to anybodys head to take a highschooler over a college player....

                        that organization deems whatever player they take to be the best acquisition for the organization....regardless of age...

                        because the rookie salaries were getting way out of hand and because u had some players coming into the league that were much younger, they instituted the rookie contract scale....which basicallly limits the investment that can be lost-by any player.....i think u will find there have been far more busts from college and int'l players than there have been high schoolers....

                        the age limit is ridiculous....ones age has very little bearing on his ability to play basketball...period...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                          Originally posted by Reggie4Three
                          Sorry, I thought I was done but read this and was left shaking my head in disbelief. The last thing a drug dealer would want would be for drugs to be legalized. Any idea why they can command such a high price for them? Because you can't go get them at Wal-Mart. Legalize them, the supply increases and the premium price goes down. All in all, not a very intelligent comparison at all.
                          some people just cant see the forest for the trees.....

                          i, for my part, am done with u and this conversation....i have a feeling ur just young and naive and not worthy of my time....when u grow up and understand how to have a civilized discussion....we will reevaluate....good luck

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                            Originally posted by foretaz
                            some people just cant see the forest for the trees.....

                            i, for my part, am done with u and this conversation....i have a feeling ur just young and naive and not worthy of my time....when u grow up and understand how to have a civilized discussion....we will reevaluate....good luck

                            For the first time, we're on the same page. I was thinking the same thing about the guy who first replied to me in this thread with two smilies. Civilized discussion would be great, but it takes two for that.
                            Can we get a new color commentator please?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                              Originally posted by foretaz
                              some people just cant see the forest for the trees.....
                              Actually, he's correct in saying that drug dealers would not be for legalization of drugs. Right now, they're the sole providers of their product. Why would they want added competition?

                              Originally posted by foretaz
                              i, for my part, am done with u and this conversation....i have a feeling ur just young and naive and not worthy of my time....when u grow up and understand how to have a civilized discussion....we will reevaluate....good luck
                              I'm not sure where this conversation became uncivilized.

                              I find it interesting that the point of view that you fight so hard against is the point of view that is currently being adopted by the league. Don't you think many high priced lawyers have been consulted and discussions much more in depth than the one we've had have occurred? And with that, both sides have agreed to institute an age limit rule.

                              Agree with it or not, it's certainly not THE worst idea in the world. And for you to continue to ridicule and talk down to people who happen to think it is a good idea only shows your level of maturity and willingness to participate in civilized discourse.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: My Take on the NBA Age Limit Rule

                                For the same reason drugsealers don't want drugs legalized, the NBA and the union agreed on the age limit, think about that one.

                                Or did you really expeect a veteran NBA player to vote against protecting his paycheck and the owners to vote against themselves?
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X