Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

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

  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post



    I have plenty of friends, and I have no need to influence anyone, sooo what is your point?

    Comment


    • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

      Originally posted by heywoode View Post
      I agree that we have a lot to evaluate to see if the trade was worth it mathematically or from a talent standpoint. At least in my mind, it was already worth it since we got rid of someone who needed to go.
      I realize you can't compare the two scenarios because they're simply not exactly the same, but there was this time about 10 years ago where the Warriors had this guy named Sprewell, and he did this thing where he CHOKED THE HEAD COACH.

      He choked the head coach for crying out loud. During practice.

      Not because the coach threw a beer at him or hit him with his car in the parking lot, but because the coach told him to "put a little more mustard on that pass."

      We ended up trading Sprewell, who in addition to choking the coach, had a record of:

      1)threatening a teammate (respected vet Jerome Kersey) with a 2x4
      2)owning a pitbull that bit off his daughter's ear
      3)reckless driving where he ran an old couple's vehicle off the side of a freeway
      4)owning an auto repair shop which doubled as a chop shop

      In return, we got a used up John Starks (2 year contract), a 38 year old Terry Cummings (expiring deal) and Chris Mills (4 or 5 years left on his deal).

      If you think Warriors fans were "just happy to finally get rid of him" in the Sprewell situation, think again. Warriors fans to this day universally agree that the Sprewell trade was a horrible deal and hurt the franchise. You'd find a heck of a lot more fans saying "what a horrible deal" than you'll find saying "good riddance."

      The killer was Mills contract, which combined with a couple other bad contracts that prevented us from re-signing our own non-Bird free agent. A guy by the name of Gilbert Arenas. We could have conceivably moved 2 bad contracts to clear up space, but it was impossible to move 3. There is now language in the CBA to prevent that from happening again, but it didn't happen soon enough for the Warriors.

      I think all in all, the Pacers did much better in their deal to unload Jackson than the Warriors did to unload Sprewell. I thought it would have been better for them to wait a little longer and put Jackson on the inactive list until another deal with shorter contracts came up, but they probably didn't want the distraction of having a teammate on the IL like the previous year with Artest.

      Point is, if you think you needed to unload Jackson badly, the Warriors were in a situation where they had to unload Sprewell about 100x worse. Yet to this day I will tell you that was a horrible trade on the Warriors part. As badly as he needed to go, I never once said good riddance because it wasn't a good deal.

      Comment


      • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        I realize you can't compare the two scenarios because they're simply not exactly the same, but there was this time about 10 years ago where the Warriors had this guy named Sprewell, and he did this thing where he CHOKED THE HEAD COACH.

        He choked the head coach for crying out loud. During practice.

        Not because the coach threw a beer at him or hit him with his car in the parking lot, but because the coach told him to "put a little more mustard on that pass."

        We ended up trading Sprewell, who in addition to choking the coach, had a record of:

        1)threatening a teammate (respected vet Jerome Kersey) with a 2x4
        2)owning a pitbull that bit off his daughter's ear
        3)reckless driving where he ran an old couple's vehicle off the side of a freeway
        4)owning an auto repair shop which doubled as a chop shop

        In return, we got a used up John Starks (2 year contract), a 38 year old Terry Cummings (expiring deal) and Chris Mills (4 or 5 years left on his deal).

        If you think Warriors fans were "just happy to finally get rid of him" in the Sprewell situation, think again. Warriors fans to this day universally agree that the Sprewell trade was a horrible deal and hurt the franchise. You'd find a heck of a lot more fans saying "what a horrible deal" than you'll find saying "good riddance."

        The killer was Mills contract, which combined with a couple other bad contracts that prevented us from re-signing our own non-Bird free agent. A guy by the name of Gilbert Arenas. We could have conceivably moved 2 bad contracts to clear up space, but it was impossible to move 3. There is now language in the CBA to prevent that from happening again, but it didn't happen soon enough for the Warriors.

        I think all in all, the Pacers did much better in their deal to unload Jackson than the Warriors did to unload Sprewell. I thought it would have been better for them to wait a little longer and put Jackson on the inactive list until another deal with shorter contracts came up, but they probably didn't want the distraction of having a teammate on the IL like the previous year with Artest.

        Point is, if you think you needed to unload Jackson badly, the Warriors were in a situation where they had to unload Sprewell about 100x worse. Yet to this day I will tell you that was a horrible trade on the Warriors part. As badly as he needed to go, I never once said good riddance because it wasn't a good deal.

        With Cummings contract coming off the books, you would think that the W's could have trade Starks(1 year remaining) the following off season, thus getting two contracts off the books.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

          And Sprewell was the real-deal on the court.

          Nobody wants to remember that.

          Let's not forget, the Warriors were content with a ten-game suspension (Acknowledging that, although Sprewell snapped in a way that was entirely inappropriate, the constant badgering he recieved from PJ was certainly a contributing factor. He'd only been publicly pleaing and begging for a trade and repreive from PJ for several weeks) and then the league swooped in and attempted to void his contract and suspend him for a substantially longer period.

          I still think that if the NBA didn't intervene, the Warriors might've fired PJ over the next ten games to take some of the pressure off Spree. But by the time Stern was done changing the punishment, and by letting PJ stay on as coach, there was no way Spree could come back to that team.

          So are you saying the Pacers offer of Dale Davis and Jalen was better than the Knicks' and Heat's offers?
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            And Sprewell was the real-deal on the court.

            Nobody wants to remember that.

            Let's not forget, the Warriors were content with a ten-game suspension (Acknowledging that, although Sprewell snapped in a way that was entirely inappropriate, the constant badgering he recieved from PJ was certainly a contributing factor. He'd only been publicly pleaing and begging for a trade and repreive from PJ for several weeks) and then the league swooped in and attempted to void his contract and suspend him for a substantially longer period.

            I still think that if the NBA didn't intervene, the Warriors might've fired PJ over the next ten games to take some of the pressure off Spree. But by the time Stern was done changing the punishment, and by letting PJ stay on as coach, there was no way Spree could come back to that team.

            So are you saying the Pacers offer of Dale Davis and Jalen was better than the Knicks' and Heat's offers?
            Actually, that's not true.

            It was the Warriors who wanted Sprewell's contract terminated. Completely. They came out with that annoucement two days later. The NBA agreed with it.

            But then of course the Player's Association got involved and a judge ruled that the W's and the NBA couldn't terminate the contract. The case went to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that Sprewell be suspended for the rest of the season (without pay), but the remaining two years of his contract would still be intact. That's what killed the Warriors.

            The Pacers offer was Jalen and Dale Davis was way better, but I doubt it was real. The Heat were allegedly offering PJ Brown and Voshon Lenard, but I doubt that was real either.

            What I'm pretty sure was happening was that the Pacers and Heat each leaked rumors that they were offering this very good package in hopes that it would cause the other guy to up the ante, thus gutting part of their core for questionable character. Basically, I think both teams were bluffing and giving bogus offers.

            There is no way the Warriors would have passed up on those alleged offers from Miami and Indy for the crap we ended up getting from NY.

            As far as PJ, I think he was a horrible head coach and GM and I think the Sonics are making a big mistake by hiring him. I hated that guy and he has no place as an NBA head coach/GM. But that gave no right for Sprewell to do what he did, and IMO it's pathetic that PJ's coaching style was taken in as mitigating factors in Sprewell's punishment. Sprewell wasn't the only guy that PJ, badgered. There were 11 other guys on the team and they didn't do what Spre did.

            Sprewell also never publicly apologized to PJ for the incident. He just said he regreted it happened. He also refused to reach out to PJ months after the incident even tho PJ extended a public olive branch. He also criticized the Warriors for making the incident public (like that was really going to stay in house) and in his first game back playing against the Warriors stated that he wanted to "kill them" (figuratively).

            In addition, he went on to sue the Warriors AND the NBA for ruining his image and costing him money. The suit was quickly dismissed and Sprewell was required to pay everyone's legal fees because it was such a joke and waste of everyone's time. An NBA spokesman called Sprewell's attempt at a lawsuit a "pathetic sideshow."

            And after all that, I still regret the trade we made. I regret it not because of the fact that Sprewell was an all-star and a hell of a player, but for the negative value we got back in return. The killer was the Chris Mills deal. Would have worked out fine with me if we were simply able to terminate the contract, but we ended up being stuck with him and had to do a bad trade.
            Last edited by d_c; 10-05-2007, 05:46 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

              Well, I've still got the "Warriors suspend Sprewell 10 games" article around somewhere.

              http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

              I remember the league pusing the Warriors to do something "tougher" than the ten game suspension. During the first couple of days after the incident there were plenty of rumors about both Sprewell's and PJ's future with the team.

              That doesn't condone or tolerate what he did. It just points to how complicated that situation was.

              Up until Sprewell snapped, PJ was the bad guy in the situation.

              We always heard you wanted three players for Spree, and Jalen wasn't a proven starter at that point of his career.
              Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
              Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
              Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
              Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
              And life itself, rushing over me
              Life itself, the wind in black elms,
              Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

              Comment


              • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                Originally posted by Jay View Post
                Well, I've still got the "Warriors suspend Sprewell 10 games" article around somewhere.

                http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all

                I remember the league pusing the Warriors to do something "tougher" than the ten game suspension. During the first couple of days after the incident there were plenty of rumors about both Sprewell's and PJ's future with the team.

                That doesn't condone or tolerate what he did. It just points to how complicated that situation was.

                Up until Sprewell snapped, PJ was the bad guy in the situation.

                We always heard you wanted three players for Spree, and Jalen wasn't a proven starter at that point of his career.
                I'm lazy and don't want to spend the time looking up the exact article, but yes the W's did initially hand down a 10 game suspension, and then a day later they decided to terminate the contract. They held a press conference and talked about ethics and the whole 9 yards to explain why.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latrell_Sprewell#Aftermath

                The Warriors never considered firing PJ at the time. In fact PJ started the next TWO SEASONS as the Warriors head coach.

                PJ was never a "bad guy" and I never considered him to be one. He was just a horrible pro coach who tried to treat grown, multi-million dollar pro athletes like a bunch of college kids on scholarships. We all know that doesn't work. He yelled at players. They had a bunch of testimony at the arbitration hearings and nobody testified anything else besides the fact that PJ was an annoying screamer.

                And hell, if the screaming ever gets to the point where you think it's abusive, walk out of practice and have the Player's Union file a grievance towards the coach. It'll make the news and if you do that, you'll make the coach look like the real @sshole while doing much less PR damage to yourself.

                I don't know if the Warriors wanted one, two or three players in return, or if Jalen Rose at that point was proven starter, but he was easily a better player than Starks, Mills or Cummings. Not even close. I mean, it's not like any of those 3 were starters themselves. Starks and Cummings were WAY past their primes at that point and Mills was just an OK bench player with a huge contract (one of the contracts that helped them lose Arenas).

                Warrior fans pretty much knew they had gotten jobbed the minute that trade was announced, and to this day they still hate the trade even more than they hate Sprewell.
                Last edited by d_c; 10-05-2007, 07:23 PM.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                  Well, I agree with the point that the two situations can't be compared.

                  ...and I'm still glad Jackson is gone and am happy enough with the trade. I reserve the right to be less satisfied with it if the players we got from GS end up as total busts. At this time, I still feel like I will have a "oh well" attitude about it.

                  I again realize I shouldn't bother ranting about the situation because I'm not going to change anyone's mind and nobody is going to change mine.



                  RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread

                    Nellie decided to throw a classroom-style quiz at the players and I guess everyone forgot to told Jack he wasn't a smart basketball player...

                    Prior to the start of practice, the results were in and Nellie addressed the team with the good....and bad news. Kelenna Azubuike and Stephen Jackson, who have both had outstanding training camps on the court, were also the standouts in the classroom. They were the only two players to score 100% on the test. Baron Davis and Austin Croshere each missed 1/2 of a question. Of course, a few players missed more then one question, but we'll protect the guilty parties.

                    Stephen Jackson and Baron Davis had a friendly wager as to who would earn the highest score between the two. Of course, BD was not too happy to learn that he had missed 1/2 a question and questioned the integrity of the graders. However, he later handed Jax his payment and all was forgotten. Jax simply commented "I'm just smarter" as he walked away from BD.
                    http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/070...gCampBlog.html

                    Comment


                    • Jax is gangsta to da core....

                      Sporting his new tat...


                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • Re: Jax is gangsta to da core....

                        I'm not sure this guy deserves another thread on this board. However....

                        He does help keep the Mo' Ron Artest threads to a minimum....and IMO he did less damage to the franchise. It also reminds me he is very far away and one year closer to being out of the league...and no offense to his fans, eventually either out of money, in prison or both. Has to be one of the two at least.

                        Keep it rolling!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Jax is gangsta to da core....

                          I wonder if he has one of Larry or Donnie's shoe on his a55 kicking him out the door.
                          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Jax is gangsta to da core....

                            Originally posted by ABADays View Post
                            I wonder if he has one of Larry or Donnie's shoe on his a55 kicking him out the door.
                            I believe the Indy Star said he has a very detailed, yet to be completed, self portrait tattoo on his back.

                            How appropriate.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Jax is gangsta to da core....

                              This was posted a few days ago in the official thread.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Jax is gangsta to da core....

                                Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                                This was posted a few days ago in the official thread.
                                hellz nah hook da bratha up, nothin but keepin him down

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X