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

Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

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

  • #46
    Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if we are involved somehow in a trade as the 3rd party team that helps facilitate a trade involving Iverson.
    What would be interesting is if we helped Minny get Iverson. They want AI, but don't have enough to give, they have to take Jax as well.

    Philly gets Tins to run point, as well as a combo of Williams, Granger, Harrison or Quis or any other role player they want for that matter.

    Indy gets a new backcourt of Foye and Davis, who Minny is shopping as well.

    I'm sure other players like Blount or Griffin can be added to make the numbers work. At the end, Minny would start with James, AI, Jax, KG and Blount, which doesn't look bad. They could ask for Harrison for more size inside.

    Philly would have Tins to trigger an uptempto offense featuring Iggy, Carney, Granger, Williams, and Quis. All they need to do is jettison CWebb.

    Indy gets what the fans have always wanted: a new backcourt with better shooting to go with an unchanged frontcourt. Although we get a bonehead back, it is still a downgrade from the previous one.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

      Originally posted by Team Indy View Post
      What would be interesting is if we helped Minny get Iverson. They want AI, but don't have enough to give, they have to take Jax as well.

      Philly gets Tins to run point, as well as a combo of Williams, Granger, Harrison or Quis or any other role player they want for that matter.

      Indy gets a new backcourt of Foye and Davis, who Minny is shopping as well.

      I'm sure other players like Blount or Griffin can be added to make the numbers work. At the end, Minny would start with James, AI, Jax, KG and Blount, which doesn't look bad. They could ask for Harrison for more size inside.

      Philly would have Tins to trigger an uptempto offense featuring Iggy, Carney, Granger, Williams, and Quis. All they need to do is jettison CWebb.

      Indy gets what the fans have always wanted: a new backcourt with better shooting to go with an unchanged frontcourt. Although we get a bonehead back, it is still a downgrade from the previous one.
      So we give up Granger and Shawne for a rookie and a chucker? No thanks.
      Slug 'em Sabres!!!!!
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=cj1SUF4wzu0

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

        Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
        It seems like the main goal is to get rid of Jackson, and that will probably be the major roadblock in getting a deal done.
        I seriously doubt any team would take Jax2 right now because of his pending legal issues. If there were some assurance that in taking him the worse he'd see is probation/community service (again), I could see Philly (or a 3rd-party team) taking a chance on him.

        Philly would get a player who doesn't demand the ball nearly as much. This would work to their advantage because they could spread the floor and get more players involved in their offense and probably take advantage of this interior size more w/Webber and AI2. But would they be willing to trade a big headache for a milder one?

        The only good thing that could benefit Philly in accepting Jax2 in the long run is IF he facings jail time, they could possibly remove his contract* from the books (in whole or in part).

        *(Note: I'm no scholar on the CBA although I did try to find something in it that covers this issue and came up empty handed. So, anyone w/more knowledge than I in this area, please feel free to chime in.)

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

          Originally posted by NuffSaid View Post
          I seriously doubt any team would take Jax2 right now because of his pending legal issues. If there were some assurance that in taking him the worse he'd see is probation/community service (again), I could see Philly (or a 3rd-party team) taking a chance on him

          I've seen that Philly is looking for expiring contracts. A conviction will void Stephen Jackson's contract. No conviction means he has no pending legal issues.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
            I've seen that Philly is looking for expiring contracts. A conviction will void Stephen Jackson's contract. No conviction means he has no pending legal issues.
            I've been thinking the same thing. If he doesn't get convicted, he has played very well this season.
            It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              I found it interesting that J.Stackhouse, A.Croshere , and P.Mensah-Bonsu didn't play for Dallas tonight. That works in a trade for AI. The thing is Bonsu can't be traded until the 15th of this month.
              Not unusual for AC and Bonsu, and Stackhouse has been out injured for a couple games.

              Is it a bad sign that I'm more worried about PB going to Philly than any of the Pacers?
              Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                People on here act like they are picking out people who they are going to marry and have unprotected sex with when they are talking about players. Give me a player like AI any damn day of the week.
                I would have expected a "no homo" from you after that one. Anything you'd like to share with the class, Dat Dude?
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                  Iverson is an idiot for not wanting to go to Charlotte.

                  Can anyone think of anyplace that would be a better fit? They have a ton of developing talent with very little experience, no clear superstart yet. He could come in and provide some veteran leadership. Their backcourt is a little weaker than their frontcourt. He could ballhog all he wants and I'm sure the younger players wouldn't mind defering to him. Charlotte has a ton of salary to work with.

                  If he came here we would just be the new Philly. Same with pretty much all of the other teams mentioned so far.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                    Originally posted by Dat Dude View Post
                    People on here act like they are picking out people who they are going to marry and have unprotected sex with when they are talking about players. Give me a player like AI any damn day of the week.
                    I'm just curious - if memory serves me you are very anti-Jack. Yes, Iverson is a much better player but has just as much baggage if not more. Just curious about the difference in your mind.
                    The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                      Originally posted by Mr.ThunderMakeR View Post
                      Iverson is an idiot for not wanting to go to Charlotte.

                      Can anyone think of anyplace that would be a better fit? They have a ton of developing talent with very little experience, no clear superstart yet. He could come in and provide some veteran leadership. Their backcourt is a little weaker than their frontcourt. He could ballhog all he wants and I'm sure the younger players wouldn't mind defering to him. Charlotte has a ton of salary to work with.

                      If he came here we would just be the new Philly. Same with pretty much all of the other teams mentioned so far.
                      If he went to Charlotte, he would be like Pierce in Boston and that wouldn't be pretty at all.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                        Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                        I'm just curious - if memory serves me you are very anti-Jack. Yes, Iverson is a much better player but has just as much baggage if not more. Just curious about the difference in your mind.
                        I am very anti-Jack, but very pro-AI, and I think I've got the answer to your question. Actually, you have the answer. "Yes, Iverson is a much better player." I don't think AI has as bad of an attitude as Jackson, and Jackson has been a fairly good citizen this year. The "practice!?" stuff was years ago, and there has been a drastic change in AI since then. He's a top tier player in the NBA, obviously. People ask why we want another bad attitude player when we've had Artest and Jackson for the last few years, and the answer is simple. AI has talent that is far and above any one we've had on this team, attitude or not. AND, AI has considerably straightened up the last few years. Anyone that can't see that is just a "hater" (though I hate using that term).

                        The argument of JO and AI not being able to mesh is a decent argument. But, IMO, JO has already taken a different approach to this year, with Big Al providing a lot of the scoring. If AI was brought in, I think JO would gladly defer offensively to an obviously superior player. To me, AI is well worth the risk involved, because if it pans out, the Pacers are champions very soon.
                        It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                          Originally posted by FrenchConnection View Post
                          So we give up Granger and Shawne for a rookie and a chucker? No thanks.
                          If we give up Granger and Shawne and don't get rid of SJax AND Tinlsey....then its not worth it.

                          Also....Ricky Davis ain't that bad......he seems to have less issues then SJax
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                            Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                            I've seen that Philly is looking for expiring contracts. A conviction will void Stephen Jackson's contract. No conviction means he has no pending legal issues.
                            True, but also true for the Pacers viewpoint. I finally got to see the first quarter of that Cavs game and honestly Jack looked MUCH better on Lebron than Granger did (in the first only). He started attacking like crazy as soon as Danny came in and they moved Jack to SG against Jones.

                            I don't think AI has as bad of an attitude as Jackson, and Jackson has been a fairly good citizen this year. The "practice!?" stuff was years ago, and there has been a drastic change in AI since then.
                            AI skipped the fan appreciation night. That's not even been A YEAR yet. AI once said that Indy fans were shouting racist names at him even though no black Sixer, Pacer, press, official, coach or fan heard such a comment. AI just nixed the Bobcats deal and is forcing the hand of the Sixers. AI used a gun to question a guy about the whereabouts of his wife. This is only 4 years ago.
                            Allen Iverson will be charged with assault and other offenses for forcing his way into an apartment with a gun and threatening two men while looking for his wife, authorities said Thursday.
                            The NBA All-Star, no stranger to trouble on and off the court, will be allowed to surrender to police Tuesday morning after his lawyer returns from vacation, police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson said. Iverson must remain inside his suburban Philadelphia mansion until then.
                            'If Iverson is seen on the street or out partying, we will arrest him,' Johnson said.
                            Iverson and an uncle are accused of barging into a cousin's apartment on the morning of July 3 as the Philadelphia 76ers' guard searched for his wife, Tawanna. Iverson allegedly had thrown her out of their house naked during a dispute, according to tapes of a 911 call obtained by The Philadelphia Inquirer.


                            Iverson also 'showed the complainants a black handgun' that had been tucked into his waistband, according to the documents. Iverson has no gun permit nor does he have a gun registered in Pennsylvania, police said.

                            http://www.absolutenow.com/mugshots/allen_iverson.html

                            Okay, no gun permit, not heat of the moment, not involved in a confrontation directly when he chose to both BRING it (why) and flash/point it in order to threaten the guys.


                            Now Dat Dude (and others), don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be totally anti-AI. Instead my attitude is disgust over people that somehow have rationalized AI's attitude and history to be better and cleaner than Jackson's. It just shows how out of touch people get. A fan base that demonizes Jackson would have a major problem with even the recent behavior of AI.

                            Just consider this - how did everyone feel about Peja sitting out "injured" during the playoffs? Now how would you have felt if the team didn't even make the playoffs and then Peja skipped the fan appreciation game at the end of the year?

                            Exactly.

                            The ONLY reason you move Jack for AI is a talent upgrade, and only an idiot would argue against that. The problem is how much other talent do you have to lose in order to get that upgrade. In the end the price might not be worth it. AI doesn't play center or SF/PF, so if Foster, Granger, Al or Shawne have to go, you take a hit. If Tinsley has to go too then you take a HUGE hit at SG/PG. It's Iverson and...Saras and Daniels and Rawle and DA?



                            edit - btw, the JO giving someone a car that was eventually stopped for pot? AI already did it, and it was just a loaner not a permanent gift, and it wasn't "had some pot flakes" it was "did a DRUG DEAL".

                            AI was of course ALSO arrested for speeding (93 in a 65) at which point the cops busted him for a couple of joints and having another handgun.

                            And in 2004 you have this gem (AFTER he caught hell for the "we talkin bout practice" thing with Larry Brown)
                            This led to a number of contentious incidents, including Iverson being suspended for missing practice, fined for failing to notify Ford that Iverson would not attend a game because he was sick, and refusing to play in game because he felt "insulted" that Ford wanted Iverson to come off the bench as he worked his way back from an injury
                            Remember how Jackson refused to come off the bench? Yeah, me neither. But then this was "way back in 2004" also, right.

                            2005
                            On December 9, 2005 after the Sixers defeated the Charlotte Bobcats, Iverson paid a late-night visit to the Trump Taj Mahal. After winning a hand at a three-card-stud poker table, Iverson was overpaid $10,000 in chips by a dealer. When the dealer quickly realized the mistake and requested the chips back, Iverson refused and a heated head-turning argument between him and casino staff began. Atlantic City casino regulations reportedly state that when a casino makes a payout mistake in favor of the gambler, he or she must return the money that they did not legitimately win by playing.
                            Wiki on Iverson

                            And let's not forget his own entry into the world of Ron Artest when he was going to release his rap album in 2000 and then caught a bunch of flack over the lryical content and had to cancel the release.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                              Damn, I forgot most of those occurrences regarding Ivy over the past few years. You present a very valid argument in comparing Jack and AI's behavior. Jack has had 1 off-the-court issue, and he had 3 teammates there with him. Iverson has had several more, conducted individually. I don't understand how many people here are willing to sacrifice the future of the Pacers just to get AI, who nobody was talking about here before the last few days.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Aldridge- Sources: Iverson nixes trade to Bobcats (mentions Pacers)

                                You all can post all the propaganda you want, but two things remain crystal clear....

                                Stephen Jackson is a scrub. Allen Iverson is a superstar. I couldn't care what the players do off the court as long as they bring it on the court, and nobody brings it quite at the level A.I. does.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X