jimmie wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Signs Of Tanking?
Collapse
X
-
p00ka wrote: View PostHang in there Xixak. For all the talk about respectful dialog here, it sometimes doesn't encompass respecting sensitivities of some posters. Most of us have lines to cross about what's "funny" and what's not, but I haven't figured out yet where that line is here. Hell, if I let my often twisted sense of humour loose, I'd likely be banned within hours, no matter how much I called it just a joke.
I guess the general rule of thumb is that in reference to someone outside the RR club, it's free game, despite the fact it's a public forum, but gawd help you if you apply the same sense of humour directly to someone here. A bit of a double standard perhaps, but what the hell can you do? My advice would be that if you find something to be distasteful, state it once and let it be, no matter what the flood of responses that may come.Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
Comment
-
p00ka wrote: View PostTo be fair, though race wasn't specifically said, referencing NBA players as a gun-toting gangster culture is most certainly speaking to the Afro-American segment of the players, from which it has all come from. Unless I'm mistaken.
American gun culture, in general (vs. Canada/Toronto, if I need to be clear) was the focus of my statement, not that I feel any real need to defend it here. But I will also say that pro athletes (again, in general, to be clear, not just black athletes, or basketball players) are a less-wordly, more insular bunch who seem to believe they are at a higher level of risk of violence than the general public, and therefore seem disproportionately inclined to want to carry firearms.
Yes, it was a joke. It wasn't, in any way other than that extrapolated by some readers, "racially charged". If you took it that way, you mistook it.Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
Comment
-
Going back on topic.. would Gay be unhappy playing in Charlotte? Well he might unless you showed him the money. He doesn't have a no-trade clause in his contract so either way it shouldn't really matter if he's happy or not as long as Charlotte believes they are better off as a team with Gay in the lineup.
Unfortunately fans don't have access to what GM's are really thinking.. they may not even want Gay and so the whole discussion could be moot. I personally would call Grunfeld and see if he would be interested like he was when Memphis was shopping Gay.
Comment
-
jimmie wrote: View PostHoo, boy. You are a unique one, that's for sure. I thought Multipaul had the market cornered; but I was wrong, there are more of you everywhere! Good old Xix, can't beat the Xix...
Comment
-
Mediumcore wrote: View PostWhoa, whoa, now. I don't care how heated a conversation gets here. There is no reason for me have to turn on my computer to see Alannis Morisette.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
Getting away from the whole guns derail:
Xixak wrote: View PostJesus...
Ok more realistic scenario:
Charlotte is the only team that wants Rudy Gay, MKG has been playing well but is still raw and they would like to make a playoff push. That being said, they are not willing to move MKG or the Detroit pick (they can't trade theirs because Chicago has it protected).
They offer us Sessions, Ben Gordon and the Blazers top-12 protected pick for Gay. What do we do?
Comment
-
Xixak wrote: View PostUmm calling someone "dude" or "bro" is not an insult by any stretch of the imagination. I start conversations with my friends like that... so if you're taking it as trying to degrade someone, then Lord help you.
Saying "stop" or "what on earth" and making a general reference (not I did not say any specific poster was on crack) to being "on crack" are not even in the same category as making a racially charged joke. Just because some "thugs" or "gangsters" might have played in the NBA before or still play in it currently does not mean that the players in the league would find a gun-favoring environment attractive. It's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. And I'm only using the word "ignorant" to put it lightly.
..If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
-
jimmie wrote: View PostYou are mistaken.
American gun culture, in general (vs. Canada/Toronto, if I need to be clear) was the focus of my statement, not that I feel any real need to defend it here. But I will also say that pro athletes (again, in general, to be clear, not just black athletes, or basketball players) are a less-wordly, more insular bunch who seem to believe they are at a higher level of risk of violence than the general public, and therefore seem disproportionately inclined to want to carry firearms.
Yes, it was a joke. It wasn't, in any way other than that extrapolated by some readers, "racially charged". If you took it that way, you mistook it.Last edited by p00ka; Fri Aug 16, 2013, 03:35 PM.
Comment
-
planetmars wrote: View PostGoing back on topic.. would Gay be unhappy playing in Charlotte? Well he might unless you showed him the money. He doesn't have a no-trade clause in his contract so either way it shouldn't really matter if he's happy or not as long as Charlotte believes they are better off as a team with Gay in the lineup.
Unfortunately fans don't have access to what GM's are really thinking.. they may not even want Gay and so the whole discussion could be moot. I personally would call Grunfeld and see if he would be interested like he was when Memphis was shopping Gay.Heir, Prince of Cambridge
If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.
Comment
Comment