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

A series of questions....

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

  • #91
    Re: A series of questions....

    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
    i should punch you in the face just for suggesting...


    Yeah? Well if you want to start the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny don't forget: I'm the closest thing PD has to Mr. Rogers!
    Last edited by Putnam; 07-16-2008, 03:54 PM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: A series of questions....

      It is interesting the direction this thread has taken - not unexpected though

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: A series of questions....

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        I just looked up "understatement" in the dictionary and they are already using the above Seth quote as an example of the word!



        -Bball
        I knew that was coming.

        But I seriously meant it to imply that I never gave the guy carte blanche. I OFTEN defended him, but I did not defend him to a great magnitude at any given time. I just think he cared more about winning than given credit, liked Rick and was liked by Rick more than his in-game outbursts suggested, and wasn't the full-blown thug people suggest.

        I know a former neighbor of his. The guy was very nice and a good neighbor.

        Again, subtle and sometimes contradictory. I just get so tired of the easy sweep into "pick one of two" all the time. I don't think Jack ruined the team and I think Jack could have flourished if he had been in Rose's spot with the 98-00 team. He's a streaky shooter, hot tempered, a sometimes active and capable defender that obviously is able to participate on winning teams.


        I don't think there was going to be a brawl or some single incident, but I do think the brawl didn't actually ruin the team as much as it was already festering underneath. The Reggie, Rik, Dale, Jax team could have taken that brawl hit even if it had been Dale out all year for throttling Green. Those guys would have rebounded and solidified, which is exactly how they became a great team in the first place.

        The brawl tested that 03-04 team and it was the first warning sign of failure. They didn't have a force capable of holding them together (JO) and had way too many disparate forces working against each other.


        It is interesting the direction this thread has taken - not unexpected though
        Did I miss the Princess Bride derail?

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: A series of questions....

          Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
          Months of selfish play? They weren't even a month into the season! How can that even be taken into account?

          The previous season was a great season. We started off strong the brawl season minus some of Artest's antics. That isn't enough to say that the team was going down anyway. There isn't enough triggers there to say that they were a falling team from the get-go.
          Tinsley's instant falling out with Carlisle, putting Anderson as the starter instead.

          The entire team's MASSIVE (like 2nd worst 2nd half record) collapse after the all-star break in Isiah's final year, involving nightmare Ron's main body of work and an embarrassing first round upset.

          Rumors of JO and Ron not getting along (and actually fighting). Jackson going off in the locker room and then apologizing to everyone the next day. Al's carping about his role on the team.


          The team was great at times, but you also kept seeing these indicators pop up that in hindsight look pretty obvious to me. And I defend that roster most of the time, I'm not the standard blaster like Peck or Bball are of them. But I have to concede that point to them, the roster had massive issues constantly stirring the pot.




          I'm also saying that Goldfoot isn't trolling here. He didn't say (without satire) "Yay, the brawl was the best thing that ever happened to the team". He's just lampooning the total demonization of it. Everyone says Ron got the wrong guy, but he really didn't. If you go back and watch the pre-brawl you see that the dude Ron does grab was egging on the fight, pounding his fist and just as eager for it to get out of hand as Green was.

          So in that way there is a sense of "ha, you asked for it and you got it". Do I feel happy about that kind of karma? Sure.

          But let's be clear, there is no way I, Goldfoot or JayRedd would want that to come at the expense of some kid getting trampled.

          HOWEVER, who the F-bomb had their kid in that drunken, rowdy, late night environment by that point anyway? Apart from team family members that is. You think I'd want to have my (not yet existing) 8 year old sitting within earshot of John Green's group of drunks, even before the hard foul? No thanks. Those dudes and many others needed to be booted long before the brawl.

          This is not Ron and Jack chase a guy into a children's choir, this is Ron and Jack STUPIDLY try to fight 5000 people. It bordered on a scene out of Cannonball Run. If Dom Deluise popped out in his cap and said "Duh Duh Daaaaa, I'm here to save you" the scene couldn't have been more surreal and absurd.

          That's the embarrassing part. You aren't "embarrassed" by real violence, you are ashamed and guilt ridden.
          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-16-2008, 04:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: A series of questions....

            Originally posted by Putnam View Post
            Yeah? Well if you want to start the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny don't forget: I'm the closest thing PD has to Mr. Rogers!
            trust me, after the ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny you won't have any mcfeeling in your donkey hodie until at least next king friday the XIII.
            This is the darkest timeline.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: A series of questions....

              3rd post just for the irony.

              Peck starts a thread to forget the brawl and other incidents and we break out into an online version of that very brawl.

              Goldfoot is Ron, I'm Jack, and I think JayRedd is getting punched in the back of the head by BillS. Sorry Duke, you might be John Green. And one of you is going to have to be Turtle in all this.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: A series of questions....

                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                Goldfoot is Ron, I'm Jack, and I think JayRedd is getting punched in the back of the head by BillS. Sorry Duke, you might be John Green. And one of you is going to have to be Turtle in all this.
                magicrat waves a dustpan at the computer screen
                This is the darkest timeline.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: A series of questions....

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  [yt]Z0QRWnaJqgU[/yt]
                  Front row tickets: 11,850 Dinar
                  Two plates of pljeskavica: 700 Dinar
                  Replica Stanko Barac jersey: 4,000 Dinar

                  Finding out minutes before tip-off that your favorite player isn't going to play: Priceless

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: A series of questions....

                    Actually, I'm JO, Naptime.

                    I was really trying to stay out of the whole fiasco but, somehow, I found myself in the middle of a crowd just tryna protect a PD mate from taking a cheapshot when all of the sudden a chair comes flying at my head for no reason.

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33
                    Front row tickets: 11,850 Dinar
                    Two plates of pljeskavica: 700 Dinar
                    Replica Stanko Barac jersey: 4,000 Dinar

                    Finding out minutes before tip-off that your favorite player isn't going to play: Priceless
                    ...and lookie lookie at little ol' Turtle wandering out on the court to see what's going on.
                    Last edited by JayRedd; 07-16-2008, 04:35 PM.
                    Read my Pacers blog:
                    8points9seconds.com

                    Follow my twitter:

                    @8pts9secs

                    Comment


                    • Re: A series of questions....

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                      I don't think there was going to be a brawl or some single incident, but I do think the brawl didn't actually ruin the team as much as it was already festering underneath. The Reggie, Rik, Dale, Jax team could have taken that brawl hit even if it had been Dale out all year for throttling Green. Those guys would have rebounded and solidified, which is exactly how they became a great team in the first place.
                      I disagree here to an extent.

                      I don't care what team gets into the brawl, that many suspension games and disruption of the on-court momentum is going to take a lot of overcoming.

                      We consider the Reggie, Rick, Dale, Jax team to be filled with enough character that the subsequent issues would perhaps not have occurred - but rumor has it that Dale was into a toke or two, so imagine he gets caught, and suppose Rik never manages to be on court for significant minutes after that season due to his feet, and the incident with Reggie being out with Barkley during a fight happens ... now maybe we have the same compounding of issues from a team that actually seemed to mostly like each other and be well-liked by the fans.

                      Someone can make the point that the fans in Indy never embraced the team of the brawl like they did the Reggie, Rik, Dale, Jax team, but set this as happening in 1995-96 against the Knicks and suddenly you have a whole new world, one where those guys also never get to that "city falling in love with them" stage.

                      Yes, the underlying issues of the JO, Jackson, Artest team certainly contributed to the team brawling instead of backing off. The underlying issues contributed to the later problems that seemed to all hit at the wrong time. Certainly RonRon's treatment of the fans after they stood behind him felt like a stab in the back (props to TheDon for pointing this out).

                      If the brawl doesn't happen the other off-court issues might be able to be forgiven. If the other off-court issues don't happen, the brawl might be overcome. All of them together, timed perfectly to scuttle any marketing - not surmountable.
                      BillS

                      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                      Comment


                      • Re: A series of questions....

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        3rd post just for the irony.

                        Peck starts a thread to forget the brawl and other incidents and we break out into an online version of that very brawl.

                        Goldfoot is Ron, I'm Jack, and I think JayRedd is getting punched in the back of the head by BillS. Sorry Duke, you might be John Green. And one of you is going to have to be Turtle in all this.

                        Don't compare me to that pathetic piece of trash. I would never, ever do anything to disrupt a sporting event.

                        My love for the team will never die out, and I will never do anything to hinder myself from supporting the Pacers until the day there is either no team or no me.

                        Shame on you.

                        Comment


                        • Re: A series of questions....

                          THE QUESTIONS

                          1. Knowing that ticket sales have already increased can we just write off the fact that the culture of the team has changed and in changing this some of the fans are returning?

                          No. That's definitely the number 1 reason.

                          2. Was the win loss % the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                          Nope. That's never the only reason.

                          3. Was the economy the only reason for last seasons attendance?

                          Nope. That's never the only reason.

                          4. Was a combination of the economy and win/loss % the only reasons for last seasons attendance?

                          Nope. That's never the only reason.

                          5. If neither of these or the combination of these was the reason, what other reasons are there?
                          All of the above. I don't see how anyone can answer otherwise. It's never just one or two things but a culmination of negative events that lead to the decline. You could also add the retirement of Reggie Miller and subsequent trade request by Ron Artest to that mix.


                          STATEMENT

                          1. Am I wrong to feel that the team (owners and Walsh) never took actual responsibility for the actions of our players?

                          I understand where you are coming from but totally disagree.

                          2. If I am wrong, remember these are about feelings not facts, then was I the only person who felt that way? Or is it possible that a few others out there felt the same way and that this combined with other incidents where the management didn't respond with dissaproval of the players, might have kept a couple of people away?

                          It's possible but I've never heard anyone complain about that before reading this post. I'd venture to say that David Stern and the NBA refs received 50% of the blame with the Pistons receiving 30%, Ben Wallace 10%, Artest 10%, and I don't think anyone complained about the Pacers brass at all after the brawl.

                          3. Was Ron Artest as popular at the fieldhouse as he was online?

                          Yeah. He was a fan favorite.

                          4. Was Steven Jackson unfairly painted by his actions at the brawl?

                          Yes, and by his actions at outside that strip club too. The man was punched in the face and hit by a car for crying out loud!

                          5. Was Jermaine O'Neal an innocent vicitim of the brawl?

                          Yes and no. Yes, he was guilty of punching that fan in the face but no I didn't have a problem with that and think the fan deserved it. JO shouldn't have got more than 5 games for it either.
                          Last edited by naptownmenace; 07-16-2008, 04:53 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: A series of questions....

                            Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                            Months of selfish play? They weren't even a month into the season! How can that even be taken into account?

                            The previous season was a great season. We started off strong the brawl season minus some of Artest's antics. That isn't enough to say that the team was going down anyway. There isn't enough triggers there to say that they were a falling team from the get-go.
                            Did you not watch the 2004 playoffs?

                            In spite of winning 61 games, the 2003-04 team had a lot of internal problems that were beginning to surface throughout the spring of 2004 and were already boiling over in the fall of 2004.

                            Let's see... Artest has a meltdown against Miami... won't board the team plane, gets upset/ feels disrespected that SVG uses his man to double (or triple) team JO, etc. And then there's the ECFs, with another meltdown, including flying commerical to Detroit. In a very win-able Game #6, Artest picks up a cheap flagrant against Hamilton, fires up a 30-footer with 19 seconds on the shotclock, and tries to dunk over Ben and Rasheed, and ignores his coach pleading with him to work the ball into JO.

                            And then in the offseason, we added Stephen Ballhog Jackson to the mix. Good plan... NOT.

                            You can't act like the 2004-05 team was assembled in the summer of 2004.

                            And even so, Artest had just returned from a two-game suspension after he announced he was quitting the team and then changing his mind a short time later. Really stable guy, huh? When he flew commercial to Minneapolis during his suspension, the team went to great lenghts to keep him and JO from being in the lockerroom at the same time.

                            If you want to dig around the archives, you will find I was never a believer that the 2004-05 team was destined for greatness. Maybe the rest of you were fooled. And I was hoping to be proven wrong, but I wasn't. That team reached the destiny I feared, albeit in a manner I couldn't have predicted.

                            If there wasn't a brawl in Game #9, there would have something else catastrophic by Game #20. We just don't know what it would have been.

                            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                            Come on Jay, you're better than this... Everyone was falling in love with the big three up until the brawl occurred.

                            http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...ead.php?t=7037
                            Not everyone. We were a small, vocal, unpopular minority.
                            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: A series of questions....

                              Doesn't matter. The season that happened happened. I can't go off the basis that Ron Artest did this, Ron Artest did that. It's Ron Artest! He is a basket case.

                              I am still not sold on the argument that the season was destined to go down the tubes. At worst it could have a been a mediocre year.

                              Comment


                              • Re: A series of questions....

                                Originally posted by duke dynamite View Post
                                Doesn't matter. The season that happened happened. I can't go off the basis that Ron Artest did this, Ron Artest did that. It's Ron Artest! He is a basket case.

                                I am still not sold on the argument that the season was destined to go down the tubes. At worst it could have a been a mediocre year.
                                Agreed.

                                Without the Brawl Artest is at worst a distraction who ends up getting traded (and probably for more than we got) and at best things work out and he's our Rodman. Subsequent incidents don't have the pall of the brawl over them and are judged on their own merits rather than as part of a pattern. Maybe Jacksin is able to overcome the negative publicity and stay with the team - some think on a basketball level that would have been a better thing.
                                BillS

                                A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                                Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X