Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time

Sam,

If you want me gone, just say the word and I will leave and thank you for the time I had here.
It is hard to bring an fair argument to someone that wields all of the power.
I am sorry that you feel my opinions are inflammatory as that is your opinion. Very few here outside of Outside and bobheckler can see things and have discussions with an open mind. Most members perception of current and former Celtics players is so skewed to what 99% of NBA fans would believe. If you are going to allow Lakers or other teams fans here and expect reasonable discussions, it would be nice for the members to be open minded and have less Celtics tunnel vision.

babyskyhook wrote:

tjmakz wrote:bsh,

For every controversial thread I start, I also start a pro-Celtics thread. Are Lakers fans not allowed to post anything that is not pro-Celtics?
There are many negative things that I read that I choose not to post such as the story about Shaq being sued by his IT guy. Not a flattering article for Shaq.

TJ- you can post whatever you want, but I go back to your definition of a troll.

It would be one thing to start a thread saying "How Much Do You Guys Think Shaq will Help the Cs ?". You could say you don't think he'll be much help, and express a negative opinion about the Shaq acquisition, but that would be a basketball discussion worth having. And the purpose of the thread would be to have a discussion and hear what the other side thinks.

What would be the primary purpose of posting the article about Shaq and his IT guy on a Boston board ? It would be to provoke and inflame. It wouldn't have anything to do with basketball. So to me it makes sense to not post it, and I'm glad you didn't. If a Boston fan posts it, then it's obviously fair game to comment, but I think a Laker fan posting a steady stream of negative threads on a Celtics board is going to seem trollish. If it was major news that was breaking, and you posted it once in a while, that would be one thing, but to post a series of negative things about the Cs resulting from nonsense articles goes against the spirit of the board in my opinion. It doesn't seem very convivial.

I'd rather have a better overall atmosphere in which to discuss and argue about what really maters (actual basketball issues) than a lot of petty little battles over trivial nonsense such as the "worst player" article. And even that article wouldn't have been so bad if it had been presented differently. If the title of the thread had been "ESPN Geniuses strike again", I think it would have gotten an entirely different reaction. But when you title it "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time", you are looking to provoke people. Maybe not consciously, but if you can't see the difference in tone between those two thread titles it's going to be a long season.

Because there will be plenty of legit arguments to be had on this board, and some of them will get heated. But the way a community such as this one survives the big fights is by having a general atmosphere of grace and respect- a place where the discussions are convivial, and where the participants from both sides build enough respect and credit with each other that when there is a blow up, everyone gets over it quickly and goes back to normal, daily interaction because they think the guy on the other side of the argument is (on balance) a good guy.

I'd rather save the inevitable fights on this board for the things that are worth fighting about than on nonsense articles that have no bearing on anything.

Because if the normal daily interaction becomes contentious due to an endless series of fights over what is ultimately petty nonsense, the board will suffer a "death of a thousand cuts", as the atmosphere will become poisoned and there will be no reservoir of good will to smooth over the inevitable, occasional big explosion.

And voila, this place turns into a version of BDC. For me, that's a big NO THANKS.

BSH,

I thought I softened the headline of this story as the original headline read the following:
"The Feeble Five Ranking the least productive five regulars for every NBA franchise".
Isn't the term Feeble Five worse that my title? Of all of the players in the NBA, the picture in the story was of Scalabrine...

Apparantely you haven't read many of the threads I started.
Almost all of them I post the link to an article from a reputable website and don't say one thing about it.
I even copy and paste the title from the story.

I don't have to agree that McHale was better then Karl Malone and if I am called a troll for disagreeing with that idea, then so be it.
I also don't have to believe that Scalabrine as a good player just to get along with everyone here.

TJ,

Exactly how do I wield all this alleged power? The only power on this board is the power of the written word. I work, like others on this forum, to earn the continued respect of my peers, not to force it. And I try to keep any imposition of my moderator status at a bare minimum.

How can you—a Lakers fan—volunteer that a lot of your posts are deliberately "controversial" (meaning, on this board, digs at the Celtics) and then expect what you would call "open-minded" reflections from a bunch of primarily hard-core Celtics fans? That's sheer fantasy land. One can either accrue or lose acceptance via his body of work, and that choice has always been yours.

This board was never intended or promoted as representing a microcosm of all NBA fans. Nor was it convened as an independent, objective debating society. People like BSH and Mustang Gator seem to respect that fact, and they appear to have found ways to earn widespread acceptance among board members without having to compromise their own opinions in the bargain. I suspect (and appreciate) the fact that they probably have to work pretty hard to pull it off at times.

As far as your status on this board, please don't try to make me the "heavy." I have no intention of trying to get rid of you at this point. In fact, I've spent considerable time, on the board and (even more so) behind the scenes, trying to help make your presence work. You might be amazed at the amount of time I'm talking about.

But it appears that something in the "equation" has to change. It doesn't seem that it's going to be the reaction of most Celtics fan board members to deliberate, semi-regular Celtics digs by a fan of an opposing team.

Sam

tjmakz wrote:

babyskyhook wrote:

tjmakz wrote:bsh,

For every controversial thread I start, I also start a pro-Celtics thread. Are Lakers fans not allowed to post anything that is not pro-Celtics?
There are many negative things that I read that I choose not to post such as the story about Shaq being sued by his IT guy. Not a flattering article for Shaq.

TJ- you can post whatever you want, but I go back to your definition of a troll.

It would be one thing to start a thread saying "How Much Do You Guys Think Shaq will Help the Cs ?". You could say you don't think he'll be much help, and express a negative opinion about the Shaq acquisition, but that would be a basketball discussion worth having. And the purpose of the thread would be to have a discussion and hear what the other side thinks.

What would be the primary purpose of posting the article about Shaq and his IT guy on a Boston board ? It would be to provoke and inflame. It wouldn't have anything to do with basketball. So to me it makes sense to not post it, and I'm glad you didn't. If a Boston fan posts it, then it's obviously fair game to comment, but I think a Laker fan posting a steady stream of negative threads on a Celtics board is going to seem trollish. If it was major news that was breaking, and you posted it once in a while, that would be one thing, but to post a series of negative things about the Cs resulting from nonsense articles goes against the spirit of the board in my opinion. It doesn't seem very convivial.

I'd rather have a better overall atmosphere in which to discuss and argue about what really maters (actual basketball issues) than a lot of petty little battles over trivial nonsense such as the "worst player" article. And even that article wouldn't have been so bad if it had been presented differently. If the title of the thread had been "ESPN Geniuses strike again", I think it would have gotten an entirely different reaction. But when you title it "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time", you are looking to provoke people. Maybe not consciously, but if you can't see the difference in tone between those two thread titles it's going to be a long season.

Because there will be plenty of legit arguments to be had on this board, and some of them will get heated. But the way a community such as this one survives the big fights is by having a general atmosphere of grace and respect- a place where the discussions are convivial, and where the participants from both sides build enough respect and credit with each other that when there is a blow up, everyone gets over it quickly and goes back to normal, daily interaction because they think the guy on the other side of the argument is (on balance) a good guy.

I'd rather save the inevitable fights on this board for the things that are worth fighting about than on nonsense articles that have no bearing on anything.

Because if the normal daily interaction becomes contentious due to an endless series of fights over what is ultimately petty nonsense, the board will suffer a "death of a thousand cuts", as the atmosphere will become poisoned and there will be no reservoir of good will to smooth over the inevitable, occasional big explosion.

And voila, this place turns into a version of BDC. For me, that's a big NO THANKS.

BSH,

I thought I softened the headline of this story as the original headline read the following:
"The Feeble Five Ranking the least productive five regulars for every NBA franchise".
Isn't the term Feeble Five worse that my title? Of all of the players in the NBA, the picture in the story was of Scalabrine...

Apparantely you haven't read many of the threads I started.
Almost all of them I post the link to an article from a reputable website and don't say one thing about it.
I even copy and paste the title from the story.

I don't have to agree that McHale was better then Karl Malone and if I am called a troll for disagreeing with that idea, then so be it.
I also don't have to believe that Scalabrine as a good player just to get along with everyone here.

TJ-

There is a night and day difference between the two thread titles, with your choice being a bad one. You were essentially starting a fight over a nonsense article that had no merit by using an inflammatory title- textbook definition of trollish behavior.

It doesn't matter what website material comes from, if you're posting a steady stream of negative articles about petty subjects relating to the Cs, then you are acting like a troll- someone who is out to provoke a reaction. Because what other purpose is there for posting those types of articles ?

But I think I'm wasting my time on this. If you think "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time" is a better thread title on a Celtics board than "The Feeble Five- Ranking the least productive five regulars for every NBA franchise", there's nothing more I can say.

BSH,

Where is my steady stream of negative articles about the Celtics?
Feel free to post the titles of all of my negative articles or threads.

Sam wrote:TJ,

Exactly how do I wield all this alleged power? The only power on this board is the power of the written word. I work, like others on this forum, to earn the continued respect of my peers, not to force it. And I try to keep any imposition of my moderator status at a bare minimum.

How can you—a Lakers fan—volunteer that a lot of your posts are deliberately "controversial" (meaning, on this board, digs at the Celtics) and then expect what you would call "open-minded" reflections from a bunch of primarily hard-core Celtics fans? That's sheer fantasy land. One can either accrue or lose acceptance via his body of work, and that choice has always been yours.

This board was never intended or promoted as representing a microcosm of all NBA fans. Nor was it convened as an independent, objective debating society. People like BSH and Mustang Gator seem to respect that fact, and they appear to have found ways to earn widespread acceptance among board members without having to compromise their own opinions in the bargain. I suspect (and appreciate) the fact that they probably have to work pretty hard to pull it off at times.

As far as your status on this board, please don't try to make me the "heavy." I have no intention of trying to get rid of you at this point. In fact, I've spent considerable time, on the board and (even more so) behind the scenes, trying to help make your presence work. You might be amazed at the amount of time I'm talking about.

But it appears that something in the "equation" has to change. It doesn't seem that it's going to be the reaction of most Celtics fan board members to deliberate, semi-regular Celtics digs by a fan of an opposing team.

Sam

Sam,

Why don't you make the boundaries clear? Are you looking to abolish all threads or comments that could be viewed by one or more as 'negative' or 'controversial'?
I am not going to cower to the pressure to say only what you or others want me to say. Stating my opinion about Malone vs. McHale or the NBA Fix Is In Argument or many other perceived unbalanced/biased discussions is not taking a dig at Celtics fans.
When you only threaten me 'that something in the "equation has to change' shows me that you are in agreement with other members when they make biased pro-Celtic statements (I will list them if you want some examples). You never tell Celtics fans here to cool their jets or to try and see things from a different side to some degree. In every aspect of our lives we need to show some and usually considerable understanding for others viewpoints, but this forum seems to be the only place that these courtesies don't apply. I appreciate that this board is not like bdc but allowing a Lakers fan here and then telling him how narrow the guidelines are seems to be a waste for all. Either let us in with more free speech available or don't let us in. I am open to either of those choices.

Sorry, TJ. I beg to differ with you on the cooling your jets comment. I wouldn't call it being reprimanded or called on the carpet for some of my comments, but most recently, for example, my aside political comments were brought into question. I thought about it for a few seconds after having it brought to my attention and rightly agreed this is not a political forum and admitted this publicly and privately as such. I was trying to be funny in my own quirky way but it just turned out to be stupid and irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Sam doesn't wield any power only in that this forum boasts his name and that he is on a board of moderators for the site. I'm also sure that if Sam did start going off the deep end posting crazy bs to no end, the rest of us could and/or would probably consider booting him off if that was what the group wanted or would just consider him completely irrelevant and ignore him.

We're all for pure free speech here. But with free speech comes responsiblity and accountibility. You can say anything you want here or in this country, but there are consequences like slander and libel if you choose to go to far, for example.

You're clearly not like the other two regualr Laker posters and this board. Nothing wrong with that. Clearly, when you post, you attract many viewers/posters. Nothing wrong with that. You're simply unwilling to compromise. Nothing wrong with that. You're standing on your principles of pure free speech. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't think Sam is looking to abolish any threads. I think he does look to abolish threads when they become childish or irrelevant or for lack of a better word, stupid or anything that resembles typical bdc drivel.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote "In every aspect of our lives we (not just the Celtic posters here) need to show some and usually considerable understanding for others viewpoints." (I think you are hinting at compromise, but I don't want to put words in your mouth) This board has been more than accomodating to you and more than understanding and is asking you to do the same.

The password is "convivial" not "arguementatively reducing threads to shouting matches and character assassinations." That's bdc in its purest form and neither Sam nor the rest of us will tolerate it. BTW, why did you come here in the first place because it seems like the free speech you desire is clearly available on bdc?

Personally, I like you. When I post to you, your online demeanor and delivery force me to carefully consider everything before I write maybe more so than all other posters with never a word spoken. You make me a better arguer. For that I am most appreciative.

You've picked your battle on this one. Not a problem. It just seems your best option to fully express your viewpoint unfettered is on bdc not here with the apparent shackles and restrictions.

If your last sentence is from the heart, and I think it is, I would say an up or down vote either from the board or the entire group is in order just for your situation so you can have some peace. You have asked for a resolution. I think in all fairness, it deserves resolution.

TJ,

Your timing is most ironic. Not 60 seconds before I opened your post, I sent an email asking a Celtics fan to cool his jets in what I'm now calling "The TJ Affair." I do things like that with Celtics fans all the time, regardless of how friendly I might be with any given poster. So, on the matter of my moderating style, you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

So, once again, you're the victim. Amazing how that always happens. Now I've "threatened" you that "something in the equation has to change." You call it a threat; I call it an observation. A threat usually involves some consequence. Where's the consequence in my comment?

There are relatively major guidelines, and someone as smart as you already knows them. (Observing them is another question.)

Remember that, as a Lakers fan on a Celtics board, you have an added responsibility on your shoulders when you participate. Instead of intentionally trying to create controversy (to which you've admitted), focus your energy on understanding and respecting the dynamics of this board and determining how you can most constructively blend in with those dynamics.

It doesn't mean you have to compromise the integrity of what you believe. BSH, Mustang Gator and Outside certainly haven't compromised theirs, and yet they fit in beautifully as highly valued members of the board. I know they've often had to work hard at it too, much to their great credit.

You need to realize that different topics take on different meanings if they're presented on this board by a Lakers fan rather than a Celtics fan. Scal is a good example.

We've had negative Scal threads all over the place. When a Celtic fan has raised the topic, there have been lots of disagreements. But, when a Lakers fan brings it up and compounds the matter with a rather inflammatory headline, the Celtics fans on the board seem to become a little more united in attacking the "intruder."

Basically, there's a mentality that we can critique our own, but Lakers fans can't (at least not without being much more circumspect than you are in what they say and how they say it). That's human nature, and you'd be better off becoming sensitive to it than expecting to change it while whining about being a victim and the lack of objectivity. Of COURSE we're subjective.

You want all the advantages of being as readily accepted as Celtics fans tend to be on this board—but without assuming the extra burden of being especially sensitive to the board dynamics and human nature as other non-Celtics fans have done. No, it's not going to be laid in your lap; you've got to work at it. And, so far, you seem to be building a lot of negative equity, which makes your extra burden even more challenging.

I'd also suggest that you stop trying to formularize things. Like assuming you can offset controversial posts by also posting a certain proportion of non-controversial posts. Like trying to offer some Wikipedia definition of the word "troll" as though a dictionary rules people's interpretations. Like expecting all people to be entitled automatically to the same treatment regardless of variations in personality and demeanor.

So now you've got my guidelines, most of which I've articulated before. I realize that they represent general advice more than practical guidelines. If you think I'm going to write some treatise outlining precisely how you should act in every situation, you're sadly mistaken. If you're really constructive in considering what I've said, instead of once again defaulting to the victim game, you're definitely more than sharp enough to develop your own internal "treatise." Whether or not you wish to go in that direction is, of course, up to you.

On some boards, every post is reviewed by a moderator before it is accepted for posting. Frankly, I think that smacks too much of a "Big Brother" mentality. But, if you ever want to pass any ideas by me, I'd be happy to work with you off the board in terms of how to post them in the least inflammatory manner.

Sam

tjmakz wrote:In every aspect of our lives we need to show some and usually considerable understanding for others viewpoints, but this forum seems to be the only place that these courtesies don't apply.

TJ,

I'm hesitant to say anything, but here goes.

First, from my perspective, I wish you could take your own statement above to heart. In the McHale/Malone discussion, for example, you demanded that everyone acknowledge your viewpoint, but you refused to acknowledge other people's viewpoints. It's a two-way street. Maybe you didn't think so, but you came across to me as refusing to acknowledge that anyone could rightly feel that they'd prefer McHale over Malone. As far as I could tell, you did not have any understanding for other viewpoints, yet you demanded that everyone have understanding for yours. The discussion deteriorated rapidly from there.

Second, this is a Celtic-oriented site, and, in my view, that requires some accommodation on the part of someone who isn't a Celtic fan. I live in Southern California and do follow the Lakers (and, Lord help me, the Clippers), but I grew up in Northern California as a Warriors fan. I prefer to present myself here as an NBA fan first and foremost. The point is, I'm here as someone who is not a Celtic fan, and I am mindful that this is a primarily a Celtic fan site. I don't consider that a severe limitation. I'm in the middle of a bunch of rabid Celtic fans, and it seems only reasonable to me to let them be rabid Celtic fans.

For you, as an avowed Laker fan, I'd say it's more difficult to find that workable level of accommodation, and I appreciate that, but it's something I'd say you need to do to make your participation here work for everyone. Let me give you an example. As an old-time Raiders fan, I'd be willing to go see a game in Pittsburgh and cheer for my team, but I wouldn't stand up and say to everyone around me that Stabler or Namath or Dawson is a better quarterback than Bradshaw and argue with anyone who says otherwise. How do you think those Steeler fans would react if I did that? Maybe you have stats and arguments to back up your case, but are you going to say a Steeler fan can't even say that Bradshaw is their favorite quarterback? While standing in their house?

This is their house. Sam's forum, while open to others, is a Celtic fan site. In life, the choice is not always between complete, total freedom of speech and not being allowed to say anything. People adjust what they say when they're in church, at school, in all kinds of situations. I think you need to realize this is one of those situations that requires accommodation on your part. It's not an all-or-nothing option; "accommodation" doesn't mean you have to, as you said, "cower to the pressure to say only what you or others want me to say." Showing respect for others and acting like a guest in someone else's house doesn't require you to forfeit your freedom of speech.

Something to consider.

Outside

Sam,

It is not just this thread. I have recently been blasted on a few different threads not because I started them or had a controversial title, but because I commented in them. Disagreeing should not equate to trollism.
It sure does with many here.

I never said I intentionally try to cause controversy.
I am not going to start a thread with the title: 'Kareem Abdul Jabbar was better then Bill Russell' then ask for comments. That is 100% looking for trouble. I am sure some view my posts as controversial and some don't. I am not here expecting to befriend, be respected or liked by everyone. If some back me up, are my comments really so negative or do some here need a "thicker skin"? I am not always right, but I try to bring facts and reason to this forum which is often downplayed by some members. If you want this forum to be a bland non-statistic, no controversy agreementfest, then I am in the wrong spot. If you allow me to be 90% successful here and fail sometimes, then I will survive here. Negative equity is fine with me. The way I see it, I am playing with house money. If I un-intentionally go bust at some point, then I leave.

I don't think this thread is trolling. It's a post linking to an article with equates to an FYI.
Putting the fact that Scal was 'rated' the least productive Celtic of all time in the title caters to this Celtics board adn starts discussion IMO.

If TJ had started the thread and based said title based on his own thoughts and feelings, then yeah I'd call that more troll-like than post a link to an article.

Also the fact that TJ didn't type any personal thoughts on the rankings suggest he wasn't trolling but sharing information and trying to create a discussion.

To end this on my part, I will not post anymore 'controversial or negative threads' like the Scalabrine one and focus less on trying to show the other side.
I won't back down from discussions like the McHale vs. Malone one, etc.
Outside, at what point does saying one player is greater then another turn into non-sense? If someone says that Dennis Johnson was better then Michael Jordan or Paul Pierce was better then Kobe, should I fold up like a house of cards and just agree? If the argument was who do we like better or why a player was a good fit for that team, that is fine, but that is often not the basis of the argument and wasn't in this one. (If) 99% of NBA fans/former players, etc feel that Malone was a greater player, do I really need to censor my comments?

tjmakz wrote:BSH,

Where is my steady stream of negative articles about the Celtics?
Feel free to post the titles of all of my negative articles or threads.

TJ-

If you think "Scalabrine was named Boston Least Productive Regular Player of All-Time" is a better thread title on a Celtics board than "The Feeble Five- Ranking the least productive five regulars for every NBA franchise", if you can't understand why one is inflammatory and one is even-handed, you will not recognize any thread you've posted as being negative, so it would be a waste of time. And I've already put too much time into this subject.

Good luck.

TJ,

You like to very literal. Think about this. You said, "For every controversial thread I start, I also start a pro-Celtics thread." That sounds to me like a very calculated 50/50 formula that, by definition (given the number of threads you start), involves a lot of purposely controversial threads.

You're right. It's not about a single thread or a single post. Something about you and your chosen posting pattern has definitely sensitized Celtics fans to the point where they're readier to jump on you than is true with most other posters. I don't think they did it with Outside. I don't think they ever did it with BSH. They (and I include myself) very briefly did it with Mustang Gator on BDC, but he very deftly figured out the reasons and addressed the situation, and it hasn't happened since.

Perhaps there's no reason at all why people seem pretty consistent in shaping the cumulative reputation you have formed. Perhaps you're right and you're just a completely innocent victim. Maybe it involves phases of the moon. But I believe it's more likely that you have failed to identify the most constructive way to be a valuable contributor to the board.

I did NOT say that you should subordinate your self to the board's whims. But, as I'm not becoming a bit tired of saying, it appears there's something about your participation on the board that invites skepticism and suspicion rather than trust. Only you can define it because you're obviously not about to take advice from others. I hope it can happen for you.

I've spent many hours, now, trying my best to get at the heart of the problem and sharing my sincere thoughts with you. You choose to reject my every input, while crying "victim" and calling me a bully, a wielder of power, and whatever. There's no question that you know how to ingratiate yourself to a guy; but perhaps you're just not as ingratiating to others as you are to me.

You can use analogies of playing with house money; you can select specific examples of your concerns; you can quote dictionaries; you can lament your victimization; and you apparently can do everything except to take a good hard look at your approach to this board. Others who are very successful non-Celtics contributors to this board have counseled you on the value of doing so. But their suggestions have generally included some element of self-examination. And therein seems to lie the stumbling block.

Sam

Sam,

I don't compare you to beat, Rosalie, dbrown or anyone else here, so don't compare me to Mustang and BSH.
I can't remember the last time Mustang posted here and before yesterday BSH's last post was 6 weeks ago. They are not active, regular members here.
Feel free to look at the threads I have started to see if my "controversial threads" are 50/50. It is more like 90/10. that are not controversial.

Most "other posters" get along fine because they don't take the time to confront some of the over the top statements or ideas that are presented here. I am fine with the negative feelings that some have about me. If my approach is within the boundaries but maybe not popular why do you continue to 'advise' me which takes hours of your time?

tjmakz wrote:I won't back down from discussions like the McHale vs. Malone one, etc.
Outside, at what point does saying one player is greater then another turn into non-sense? If someone says that Dennis Johnson was better then Michael Jordan or Paul Pierce was better then Kobe, should I fold up like a house of cards and just agree? If the argument was who do we like better or why a player was a good fit for that team, that is fine, but that is often not the basis of the argument and wasn't in this one. (If) 99% of NBA fans/former players, etc feel that Malone was a greater player, do I really need to censor my comments?

TJ,

You bring up several issues here.

I don't think you need to "back down" or "censor" your views. I don't think anyone has a problem with your opinion that you think Malone was a better player. Just allow others to have a different opinion, and respect that opinion. It's not far-fetched for someone, particularly a Celtic fan, to prefer McHale.

tjmakz wrote:(If) 99% of NBA fans/former players, etc feel that Malone was a greater player, do I really need to censor my comments?

Wow, on two fronts.

First, you cannot say that 99% of fans and former players feel that Malone was a greater player. You've apparently convinced yourself that "Malone is better than McHale" is incontrovertible fact, but it's not. You have some selected stats and an ESPN survey that included a few former players and turned that into an absolute. That's a huge leap that isn't justified and, more importantly, doesn't leave any room in your worldview for differing opinions.

Second, as far as I can tell, no one has said you can't prefer Malone over McHale. You don't have to "censor" that opinion. All I ever asked you to do was accept that someone else could have a different opinion. Accepting that someone else can have a different opinion is not censoring your own opinion.

tjmakz wrote:Outside, at what point does saying one player is greater then another turn into non-sense? If someone says that Dennis Johnson was better then Michael Jordan or Paul Pierce was better then Kobe, should I fold up like a house of cards and just agree?

As I said during the McHale/Malone discussion, if someone says that Dennis Johnson was better than Michael Jordan, you can ask that person to justify their position, and if that person is sincere and you disagree, you choose to disagree. Allowing someone else to have a differing opinion, even one you consider nonsensical, does not force you to "back down" from your own opinion. You hold your opinion, someone else holds theirs, and the existence of a differing opinion does not impinge on your freedom to have your own opinion. So what if you consider the other person's opinion nonsense? Aren't they allowed to have their opinion, just like you're allowed to have yours?

I keep bringing the same concept up over and over -- you need to accept that other people will have differing opinions and that, on a Celtic board, many of those opinions will skew in favor of the Celtics, and that's okay. If it helps, I'm willing to discuss ways to make your participation on the board work for you and for everyone else, but at some point, you need to accept that basic premise.

I hope this helps.

Outside

Outside,

You must have missed that word (If) when I mentioned 99%. That was obviously thoretical.
So, if I don't have to back down from my opinions from a nonsensical post, then why do I receive the grief when others should be supportive?
Do you even care to hear why someone would feel DJ was better then MJ? I don't. That would be pure nonsense. Why give every ridiculous theory and belief a platform here?

tjmakz wrote:So, if I don't have to back down from my opinions from a nonsensical post, then why do I receive the grief when others should be supportive?

For the last time, you're not receiving grief for your opinions, you're receiving grief because of your refusal to accept and recognize others' opinions. You started the "grief" cycle by refusing to let others have an opinion different from yours. You would not accept that someone could prefer McHale over Malone. Others reacted to your intolerance of differing opinion.

tjmakz wrote:Do you even care to hear why someone would feel DJ was better then MJ? I don't. That would be pure nonsense. Why give every ridiculous theory and belief a platform here?

If you feel it's nonsense, then ignore it. Is it that hard? You sound like someone who only wants certain TV channels and calls the cable company to complain about all these other terrible channels and that they should get rid of them. If you don't want to watch a channel, don't watch it. If you don't want to accept what someone posts here, then ignore it. It's that simple.

TJ, you don't seem to be taking any of this advice to heart. You keep counter-arguing every point brought up to you instead of considering a possible change on your part. Stop countering every point, take some time, and consider what people have said. I've made my points, and I'm done.

tj,

You and I have had very few conversations. As you may have noticed, I tend to read more than post. This is for a few reasons, one is, I do not posses the writing skills that most here do (although I'm sure Sam will tell you I try to compensate for that when talking) but the main one is that the "veterans" here have a lot more basketball knowledge than I, and I learn from it.

I do want to make (2) observations. Please take these as just what I see, and not any type of personal attack, as you and I, or anyone else on this board for that matter, has ever had an issue with me (I think)

The first...You tend to battle back and forth at times, then post an "I'm sorry" type of thing. I'm not sure why you go through all the energy with this. You have many days at a time when you are "in the flow" of conversation, and I enjoy reading your posts. Then all of a sudden, stir it up for awhile. Then, you have no choice but to become defensive. Why? After all those days of posting great stuff (you are certainly very knowledgeable about the game) go that route?

The second is your avatar. I'm pretty sure no one has got on you about this, although I do remember some one referring to it once in a joking way. If we, meaning the other members & moderators were of a "certain" type, this would have been a huge issue. Some could say that after such a tough loss by the Celtics in the seventh game, that using such an avatar is "rubbing salt into the wound" I assume that you use it because you are proud of what your team accomplished this year, however, I, or someone else could easily think other wise. My point here is that although this is a Celtics board, we do believe if free speech, and or, expression. When it deters the "flow" is when a moderator, or any member, points it out. This was a major complaint about BDC, as we had trouble keeping a conversation moving forward due to lack of moderator...... I'll call it guidance.

So, why am I pointing these out? The only reason is that sometimes we do not see what we project, or how we are perceived by an observer and it can be helpful to know. Food for thought.

Pete

Pete,

Thanks for the comments. I need to clarify your second point.
There was a gentlemans agreement that the fans of the losing team would use the avatar of a player from the winning team.
Even though LA won, I voluntarily used a Doc Rivers avatar until July 1st when the agreement period was over. I praised Doc for the job he had done and used that avatar in respect of him as a coach and a father since it looked like he was going to not come back this year to spend time with his family.

Outside,

I am the complete opposite of calling the cable company or complaining at a restaurant or going back to a store because we realized we were over charged.
But if I am at a meeting or a dinner and someone says something extreme and unreasonable, I am the first one to say that is bunk. My wife thinks a spirited conversation with a conspiracy theorists who thinks George Bush wanted/ordered the WTC to be destroyed is arguing. I cannot just sit there like a lump on a log and say nothing. I realize nothing here is comparable to that situation because this is only basketball, but my committment to speak what is true to me rises even in these conversations.
And no, I am not going to just brush off or ignore comments if someone said DJ was better then MJ.
Thanks for your comments. I respect your words and advice.

tj,

You are right!!! I do remember that and it was an extremely kind & classy thing to do, that gesture helped ease my pain, which took more than month to begin to subside, away.

Ya know, that and BSKH fun with the loser's avatar project helped, so why bother with the other stuff going on here? Lets just exist to discuss basketball, that is really why Sam created this forum & the only reason why you would meet any resistance is because it is perceived that you are deviating from that, thats all, nothing more, nothing less. You and only you, have the control over that perception.

Think hard on it, and put it away for good. We can all have a long term relationship, which is more beneficial than a short term debate.

Thank you for reminding me about the Doc avatar, I had forgotten about that.

Sincerely,

Pete

TJ,

It is certainly very appropriate to compare you with other non-Celtics fans because all of you face the common challenge of being non-Celtics fans on a Celtics board and all of you have been very visible on the board at one time or another. (The timing has nothing to do with anything.) Too the extent that you feel the others are different from you, perhaps you should study those differences and see if they might work for you because they're obviously doing (or not doing) something very right.

The reason I take the time is simply that I feel you deserve it. I believe you're a very good person with a high intellect (in general and also in terms of basketball), and I've also have seen how you can be an important and constructive force on this board. The Doc Rivers avatar was just one of several examples. I'm not about to give up on your potential with the board just because I believe you're going in some ill-advised directions.

Apparently you have developed an idea that I'm here to put you down just for kicks. Nothing could be more wrong. Anyone on this board who really knows me will tell you that I will never quit on something I think is worth a lot of effort.

Anyone who has read my posts over the years will attest to the fact that I've repeatedly said many of my favorable moments on both BDC and here have been times when someone and I got off on the wrong foot and wound up being friends. Mustang Gator will tell anyone that he was one of those involved. Pumpsie Green will tell you the same thing. (In fact, we had some ferocious battles on the Game-on Thread.) And I was shocked and very touched when he presented my wife and me with a beautiful bottle of wine at the San Francisco party.

I didn't start this board just for the heck of it. And certainly not for the money. I started it because people are my favorite things in the world. I really like people. Including you. Nothing I'm saying to you is designed to diss you gratuitously. I sincerely wish you'd just take a leap of faith and consider some of the suggestion others and I have offered.

I hope that answers your question.

Sam

Thank you for the kind words Sam.
This last post definitely is a difference maker for me to stay on track and to make some necessary adjustments.