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 JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

    Well, let's just say that the Pacer fans around here have become a bit jaded in regards to ESPN's reporting. Mostly due to a blatant flip-flop on the brawl from immediately after to the next day. Then there was their report stating that Artest was involved in a bar fight (correct me if I'm wrong as to situation) in Atlanta when it was later proven that he was in Florida with his family. ESPN failed to retract or even acknolwedge their error.

    And to say that reporters would not make up whole paragraphs is naieve at best. There have been numerous instances of reporters inventing entire interviews if not stories, not just in sports but in real news too.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment


    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

      Originally posted by gng930 View Post
      And I'd also like to say that I also find it peculiar that a writer goes through the trouble of fabricating an ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, yet when JO was read the quote for the "first" time, he responded with a terse, "Wow. I didn't say that." I mean technically, if he had actually said "Bird" instead of "Larry" (or vice versa) at any point in that diatribe, he'd be telling the truth right? Like you said, he is a politician at times.

      Then again, maybe he feels he doesn't need to put all that much effort into every ridiculous accusation, an effort much like the one you're asking the ESPN writer to bother with.
      Trying to figure out where to go with this.

      First, when it was an "Alipour said/JO said" discussion I tended to side with Alipour just because while journalists sometimes fabricate stuff, pro athletes do a lot more.

      There were problems with this from the beginning.

      First, JO isn't Ron Artest. Ron Artest does not have a mouth to brain connection wired into his body. JO does - he actually thinks before he speaks. So the two comments reported by Alipour but not by SI - the "I want to be traded and the Lakers are the team I want to go to" and the "Larry Bird tries to rip other teams off in trades" are entirely out of character for JO.

      Still, JO was at an event, might have tipped his elbow a couple of times and maybe something came out - we all know Larry Bird isn't his favorite person and he was PO'd when Isiah was let go right after he'd re-signed with the team.

      The real problem with Alipour's account is a tape HAS been released of the interview. JO's comments to SI are in that interview. The two comments Alipour wrote in are nowhere to be found.

      The other real problem is that in Alipour's e-mail exchange with Mal, he said JO said this when there were a bunch of reporters around and that everyone heard it - but nobody else wrote about it and the tape of that interview doesn't include it.

      Alipour says he has a tape. He should release that.

      Someone else commented that only Pacers fans are arguing against Alipour's account.

      Well, duh - Pacers fans are the only ones who really care. I get PO'd whenever Marbury comes out with one of his idiotic statements but nobody but a Knicks fan will give a rat's behind about it - it doesn't reflect badly on anyone else's team.

      For now, I believe JO for the reasons listed above. Alipour's tape of those comments or some sort of confirmation from another reporter is what it would take for me to believe otherwise - and we have comments from other reporters, such as Hoopsworld's Eric Pincus, who directly contradict Alipour - they didn't hear what he wrote.

      Right now I think that either Alipour made it up or maybe he was at an event, HE was the one who'd tipped his elbow a couple of times and heard something that wasn't said.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

        Originally posted by Kstat View Post
        Andrew Bynam is the best 8-point, 6-rebound player in NBA history. If he keeps this up, he'll set some dort of NBA record for consecutive single-singles.

        Shoot, who am I kidding? Add one assist and one block in there, and he actually averaged a quadruple-single last year.

        And he's only 20. Wow.
        Haha, I literally laughed out load when I read this post. This is signature material.

        Comment


        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

          Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy? View Post
          It takes about 5 minutes to sign up for a new account. There will be more once this one's banned, I assure you.

          14,000 posts....I can't recall the last time I saw anyone on any message board with that many posts. You my friend truly are the King of No-Lifers. I bow down to you.
          I know he's banned, but I would like to bring something up anyway. This guy has 7.5 posts per day, using the post per year (which is the PD equivalent to the per 48 minute stat), he'll have a total of 2737 posts in a year. Talk about potential! His 3 year average: 8212! This guy could be in the PD hall of fame. What a shame.

          Comment


          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

            Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
            Y'know, with three future HoFers in Kobe, Bynum, and Crittenton, and Mr. "I would be a 24-time All-Star in the East" Lamar Odom on the same team, we should probably be discussing how many games the Lakers are going to win this season on the way to the championship.

            I say 97, not including the playoffs.
            You joke, but Stern could make that happen.

            They hit 82-0.
            "Hmmm, let's just tag on an extra 15 games and see how long they can keep it up, the ratings are through the roof on this thing."

            hoooottttt pocccc.....errr

            looonnnnnggggggg scheeeeedddduuuuuulllle

            Comment


            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
              looonnnnnggggggg scheeeeedddduuuuuulllle
              Not as good as your By Mennen, but it's good.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                All you need to know about JO as a Pacer
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8K8sPdP8Q

                Just so he MIGHT be able to come back in this same regular season game (if someone shot for him he wouldn't be allowed to return that game). We talkin regular season, not the playoffs, not the Finals. Regular season.



                Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                Not as good as your By Mennen, but it's good.
                BTW, completely by chance my wife had me watch that clip today just before I checked into this thread. Isn't that bizarre? I've seen it before and love his stuff (cake is my favorite) but how weird that the HP clip would come at me from 2 different directions within the same hour.

                Comment


                • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                  All you need to know about JT as a Pacer
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLEOhQSe0hY

                  (Only the first 10 seconds)
                  Last edited by LG33; 08-11-2007, 03:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    By those standards a man would go to war on the mere word of one writer, oh wait........


                    If that is what the world has come to, then it's time to change the world again, allegations made need to be proven once they're denied by the alleged perpetrator.
                    It works that way in the law in most civilized countries.

                    ESPN, the organization that was covering the brawl, and ALL of their reporters were outraged, were adament this was a thing Detroit was fully responsible for, drunk fans, the refs, the security, you name it, I can prove that, I have the tape/mpeg of those comments, to only wake up to a new day 8 hours later and a "company directive" that this was all "the Pacers" fault.
                    To this day they maintain that company directive.

                    A reporter who's honesty is being questioned has an issue at hand he needs to address, when he doesn't the issue goes beyond "right or wrong" it goes straight into "integrity" and for that reason alone he should produce evidence, since he doesn't he should seriously consider another occupation.

                    The larger public's acceptance of lies is a worrysome development, one that in the past has never lead to anything good, perhaps instead of defending that attitude you should start thinking for yourself.
                    Please don't insult my intelligence and label me as a lemming. My "prevailing belief" theory was only a response to the suggestion that Alipour has to prove himself to what amounts to a minority of people that are (as a whole) biased.

                    The notion that any professional has to respond to every single ridiculous (in his mind) accusation is simply unrealistic and in itself an undermining of his own integrity. If another reporter calls him out on it? Sure. But a small contingent of readers? Not at all, and unfortunately that's all that we are.

                    Similarly, whatever your profession is, I'm sure you don't need to always justify your actions to some random slack-jawed yokel off the street who criticizes how you do your job. No, your reaction would be, "Who the (bleep) are you and what the (bleep) do you know about my job?" Now if a colleague makes that same criticism, then you would take it seriously and address it.

                    As for whether or not JO said it, I've already detailed my own reasons for believing so. I just find it hard to believe that multiple news sources misinterpreted his words to that degree and that this supposed collective misinterpretation somehow lead to a common conclusion. I see a trend; my opinion is simply that it is the more likely explanation for the discrepancy and I'm not sorry about it one bit.

                    Comment


                    • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                      Originally posted by indygeezer View Post
                      Well, let's just say that the Pacer fans around here have become a bit jaded in regards to ESPN's reporting. Mostly due to a blatant flip-flop on the brawl from immediately after to the next day. Then there was their report stating that Artest was involved in a bar fight (correct me if I'm wrong as to situation) in Atlanta when it was later proven that he was in Florida with his family. ESPN failed to retract or even acknolwedge their error.

                      And to say that reporters would not make up whole paragraphs is naieve at best. There have been numerous instances of reporters inventing entire interviews if not stories, not just in sports but in real news too.
                      Sure it's possible, but what's simply less likely? A reporter fabricating an entire paragraph or Jermaine O'Neal expressing what even Indiana fans will admit is an underlying contempt for Bird? Was it out-of-character? I believe so, but isn't that something we've been guilty of doing at some point in our lives? In the history of mankind, what has happened more often, someone acting out-of-character or complete fabrication by a reporter for a major news service?

                      I'm sorry you disagree, but the majority of objective minds do agree that the truth is closer to my version than yours.

                      Comment


                      • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                        Someone else commented that only Pacers fans are arguing against Alipour's account.

                        Well, duh - Pacers fans are the only ones who really care. I get PO'd whenever Marbury comes out with one of his idiotic statements but nobody but a Knicks fan will give a rat's behind about it - it doesn't reflect badly on anyone else's team.
                        Except that even most of the Indiana reporters I've read believe that JO did in fact make those statements or something to that effect - the focus on their articles has been on JO's alleged flip-flopping as opposed to Alipour's integrity. Your "indifference" argument has no bearing here. Unfortunately, a single writer at any newspaper does yield significantly more clout than dozens of fans on an internet message board.

                        Trying to figure out where to go with this.

                        First, when it was an "Alipour said/JO said" discussion I tended to side with Alipour just because while journalists sometimes fabricate stuff, pro athletes do a lot more.

                        There were problems with this from the beginning.

                        First, JO isn't Ron Artest. Ron Artest does not have a mouth to brain connection wired into his body. JO does - he actually thinks before he speaks. So the two comments reported by Alipour but not by SI - the "I want to be traded and the Lakers are the team I want to go to" and the "Larry Bird tries to rip other teams off in trades" are entirely out of character for JO.

                        Still, JO was at an event, might have tipped his elbow a couple of times and maybe something came out - we all know Larry Bird isn't his favorite person and he was PO'd when Isiah was let go right after he'd re-signed with the team.

                        The real problem with Alipour's account is a tape HAS been released of the interview. JO's comments to SI are in that interview. The two comments Alipour wrote in are nowhere to be found.

                        The other real problem is that in Alipour's e-mail exchange with Mal, he said JO said this when there were a bunch of reporters around and that everyone heard it - but nobody else wrote about it and the tape of that interview doesn't include it.

                        Alipour says he has a tape. He should release that.

                        For now, I believe JO for the reasons listed above. Alipour's tape of those comments or some sort of confirmation from another reporter is what it would take for me to believe otherwise - and we have comments from other reporters, such as Hoopsworld's Eric Pincus, who directly contradict Alipour - they didn't hear what he wrote.

                        Right now I think that either Alipour made it up or maybe he was at an event, HE was the one who'd tipped his elbow a couple of times and heard something that wasn't said.
                        You bring up very valid points. OTOH, all you need is 30 minutes in front of the TV to "prove" that your average 5th grader is smarter than your average adult. But again, your viewpoints reflect a very small contingent of ESPN readers. If Sam Alipour's entire world was PacersDigest.com then yes it would be reasonable to expect him to prove himself. But I'm sure you know that outside of PD, most have already made up their mind that JO did in fact make the statement or something to that effect. Most reporters, inside and outside of Indiana, have come to the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority here on PD is nothing but a tiny island residing within the sea that is Alipour's world.

                        I do genuinely sympathize with Pacers fans. I know what it feels like to feel betrayed by someone you've supported unconditionally through so many years. Whether or not he said those things, his immediate attempt to temper the flames tells me that he's a better man than Kobe will ever be.

                        Contrary to the notions of the more simple-minded (who have trouble understanding the concept that not ALL Lakers fans think alike), I am not here to try and devalue JO or push an unfair deal. For some reason, the fact that I believe Alipour means I'm some sort of evil, unreasonable, self-entitled Laker fan who apparently has never worked a day in his life either. For those interested in ever pursuing psychology/psychiatry as a field, this is actually a classic example of a defense mechanism known as "splitting".

                        I do understand that any package sans Odom will lack that "known quantity". However, I've also noted that a package that is basically Odom + Bynum for JO is considered a lateral move by even Kobe, so it has absolutely no chance of happening. That's why I've been trying to push other scenarios (feel free to browse my post history), primarily by splitting Odom into several assets and dividing up those assets between the Lakers and Pacers.
                        Last edited by gng930; 08-11-2007, 07:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                          Originally posted by gng930 View Post
                          In the history of mankind, what has happened more often, someone acting out-of-character or complete fabrication by a reporter for a major news service?
                          I'd say being misquoted by a newspaper. I have a higher belief in humanity than journalist.

                          Why was he the only one to report the juicest part when he claims everyone heard it? If JO only said it to him why would he be the one JO said it to?
                          Last edited by Arcadian; 08-11-2007, 07:40 PM.
                          "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                          "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                          Comment


                          • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                            Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                            I'd say being misquoted by a newspaper. I have a higher belief in humanity than journalist.
                            I agree, but what posters here are accusing amounts to much more than simple "misquoting".

                            Comment


                            • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                              Originally posted by Arcadian View Post
                              Why was he the only one to report the juicest part when he claims everyone heard it? If JO only said it to him why would he be the one JO said it to?
                              If he was lying why would he even try to implicate other reporters? If you wanted to convince your buddies of some lie that you did the nasty with Jessica Alba, would you point to 5 random people on the street and say, "Ask them. They were there."

                              Comment


                              • Re: The Official JO trade rumors/speculation/discussion thread

                                Originally posted by gng930 View Post
                                Sure it's possible, but what's simply less likely? A reporter fabricating an entire paragraph or Jermaine O'Neal expressing what even Indiana fans will admit is an underlying contempt for Bird? Was it out-of-character? I believe so, but isn't that something we've been guilty of doing at some point in our lives? In the history of mankind, what has happened more often, someone acting out-of-character or complete fabrication by a reporter for a major news service?

                                I'm sorry you disagree, but the majority of objective minds do agree that the truth is closer to my version than yours.
                                AH HA!! A misunderstanding! At no time did I say that I didn't believe JO said those things, I for one believe he probably said something along those lines. I was stating why Hoosiers as a matter of course distrust ANYTHING reported by ESPN and require proof when it involves one of their own. See? I was misinterpreted....see how easy that happens?

                                Now, to be honest I have a bias anyway because I have been interviewed once for TV and numerous times for print media. The TV people would stop my response, rephrase the question, and try again. Repeatedly rephrasing the question until they got the 4 second sound bite they wanted to use to support their story. The numerous times I spoke with print media I was misquoted, rephrased, and had my comments ascribed to another person while theirs we ascribed to me. tHis happend frequently enough I considered it a pattern....but with age I can say it was probably ineptness on the editor's part.

                                If it happend to me, a realtive nobody, imagine how they could butcher a real story.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X