# As much as I hate to admit it, we're getting outcoached on a regular basis



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I like Nate McMillan. I really do. Like his discipline. Like his commitment to defense.

But the guy has come up woefully short on numerous occasions this season, and last night's game was a perfect example.

To start the fourth quarter, he goes with a mind-boggling lineup of Juan Dixon, Martell Webster, Travis Outlaw, Jamaal Magloire and Jarrett Jack. Where's the offense in that lineup? Sure, they can all score, but none of them really want to take a shot when the game's on the line. A lineup full of "Here, you take it" guys. Other than Magloire, who never met a rolling hook shot he didn't like. Clang. Brick.

Anyhow, he continues this mind-numbing lineup through the first half of the fourth quarter, while a game Celtics squad keeps their lead at about 6 points.

Finally, McMillan puts Randolph and Roy back in the game, and proceeds to go post-right with Z-Bo on every play down the floor, even though Zach was stumbling through his worst game of the year. Meanwhile, Roy, who had been hitting jumpers from just about everywhere on the floor, gets no looks. No plays called for him. Finally, when I think McMillan gets it figured out and we hit a three to make it a manageable game with less than 2 minutes left, he calls another post-entry play for Randolph, who gets doubled and throws an ill-advised pass to the top of the key. Wally steals and throws down a dunk on the other end for the ball game.

Just an absolute comedy of errors in lineups and play-calling down the stretch last night. And unfortunately, I think it's more the norm than it is the exception this year.

-Pop


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

here comes the winning streak folks!


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Hap said:


> here comes the winning streak folks!


I should be on the payroll if I had that kind of power.

-Pop


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Some of his lineups are ridiculous, but those are the players we have. Blame management for having Juan Dixon as our backup SG. Blame management for having Magliore as our backup C. 

Or Blame NATE for playing those two turd sandwiches over Martell and LMA.

If we are going to stink anyways, why not play the youth, who have a chance to be better than the career backups who usurp their playing time.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> Some of his lineups are ridiculous, but those are the players we have. Blame management for having Juan Dixon as our backup SG. Blame management for having Magliore as our backup C.
> 
> Or Blame NATE for playing those two turd sandwiches over Martell and LMA.
> 
> If we are going to stink anyways, why not play the youth, who have a chance to be better than the career backups who usurp their playing time.


I cannot fathom Nate's blind devotion to Dixon. Juan has produced well about 20% of the time, but Dixon keeps coming in earlier and earlier in games.

There is no coincidence that the Blazers have been starting off well with Jack/Roy at the 1/2, then Dixon comes in and the offense stalls.

Sergio needs to take Juan's minutes and LMA needs the minutes that Magloire has been getting. There is no reason LMA should be riding the pine with the most exciting player on the team while Magloire and Dixon get extended minutes night in and night out.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

drexlersdad said:


> Some of his lineups are ridiculous, but those are the players we have. Blame management for having Juan Dixon as our backup SG. Blame management for having Magliore as our backup C.
> 
> Or Blame NATE for playing those two turd sandwiches over Martell and LMA.
> 
> If we are going to stink anyways, why not play the youth, who have a chance to be better than the career backups who usurp their playing time.




Blazer management didn't put Juan on one as the back up SG, Nate did. Martell Webster is a SG also, and Nate uses Juan instead. Management also didn't put Magloire as our backup center....again, Nate did. Zach, LaFrentz, or the obvious choice Aldridge can all play center...


So why is it mangements fault that Nate plays Juan and Magloire over other people exactly?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think Dixon is in the Magloire package. I'm reserving all judgement/criticism until after the trading deadline.

As much as I agree with the sentiment in this thread, Portland is still rebuilding and needs to make the most of their assets.


----------



## For Three! Rip City! (Nov 11, 2003)

I have been thinking somewhat along the same lines. It's impossible not to speculate about why Mcmillan is playing the lineups that he is. I can't think of any reason to play Magloire over Aldridge except to showcase his skills for a trade prior to the deadline. If that's the organizations' goal then I think they're doing a good job of it. Otherwise some of those lineups really stink.

I like Juan Dixon as a person and as a shooter but he's a not someone I would want on the floor for more than about 15 minutes a game. I really like Webster too but he's just not playing well and frankly looks like a high school kid trying to play pro ball. He needs time. Just not playing time. Not yet. There are no other alternatives though.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Blazer management didn't put Juan on one as the back up SG, Nate did. Martell Webster is a SG also, and Nate uses Juan instead. Management also didn't put Magloire as our backup center....again, Nate did. Zach, LaFrentz, or the obvious choice Aldridge can all play center...
> 
> 
> So why is it mangements fault that Nate plays Juan and Magloire over other people exactly?


How do you know this?

We've already seen in the past how management influenced who should play. How do you know management hasn't told Nate to put one player in more than others?


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

QUOTE=Samuel]I think Dixon is in the Magloire package. I'm reserving all judgement/criticism until after the trading deadline.

As much as I agree with the sentiment in this thread, Portland is still rebuilding and needs to make the most of their assets.[/QUOTE]

Exactly when is the "trade-deadline" anyone. I need a "Hope Target" please.:biggrin: :biggrin: 

gatorpos


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> We've already seen in the past how management influenced who should play. How do you know management hasn't told Nate to put one player in more than others?


The only time I can think of when management has had influence in who plays was when Cheeks had burnt all of his bridges and we were losing at a rapid pace all while he was on the cusp of being fired. 

McMillan has one of the largest contracts of a coach in the league and is here for 4 more years, I'd think that management will back off for a little while. If the team continues poor play into next season and some of the youngsters aren't getting PT then I could see them stepping in. But, right now, I doubt it.


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

Well, people never cease to excuse crappy coaching by saying that so and so preaches discipline and defense. Besides Don Nelson and a few others, who wouldn't?

I "like" Nate too. BUT....

I love my grandma, she is 78 years old and was a STAR player for her highschool in Montana in like 1947. She would preach defense and discipline too. Somehow I just can't picture her having Nate's job. It is just getting harder to imagine Nate having Nate's job too. 

I admit coaching must be difficult but in a country of over 250 million people there has to be a coaching genius out there. I just hope we find this person in a few years when we the blazers have the talent needed to really compete. 

For now it is just frustrating, can you imagine a time when they should actually win most games?

Example, I never liked Art Shell but you can't tell me that the Raiders would have been in the Superbowl with Parcells or Belicheck (spelling?)


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Lets just shoot straight here. After most losses in the past ten years the blame has been put on the coach. When Portland wins, very little credit is given to the coach. 

I can all but promise you that the coach after Nate will get ripped for costing us games to. I don't know what makes everyone an expert on how to coach in the NBA, but I'm sure most NBA teams are looking for the coach who is near perfect. Hopefully they'll realize that there are a ton of people on this board that know a ton about coaching in the NBA and would be way better for Portland than Nate.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

What is Portland's record in close games this season? IMO coaches play a role in games that are won/lost by 5 points or less. Talent and execution decide the majority of games outside of that.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

When in doubt, blame the coach.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Tince said:


> What is Portland's record in close games this season? IMO coaches play a role in games that are won/lost by 5 points or less. Talent and execution decide the majority of games outside of that.


This is a good point, and I could see an argument for saying our record would be worse - maybe much worse - without Nate. But the counterargument is that our record this year isn't actually all that important - we know we aren't playoff bound, and whether we win 15 or 35 games this year just doesn't matter in the long run. 

The argument goes, we should be preparing for the future, and playing Jamaal and Juan isn't doing anything but buying a few more wins this year (at best) at the expense of wins next year. That argument might be wrong - it may be that players do learn more from practice than games, for instance - but that's the argument. 

I don't actually have any idea how players develop - maybe they need to be hung upside down and beaten with broomsticks every third day - but I know I'd be more interested in watching Sergio and LaMarcus play (poorly) than watching Dixon and Magloire play (poorly). 

barfo


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> I don't actually have any idea how players develop - maybe they need to be hung upside down and beaten with broomsticks every third day - but I know I'd be more interested in watching Sergio and LaMarcus play (poorly) than watching Dixon and Magloire play (poorly).
> 
> barfo


As a fan who grew increasingly annoyed at each close victory eeked out with grit and hustle and dumb luck (as opposed to superior talent and skill), I tend to agree.

I would rather grab the double bonus of developing the promising looking youngins on the rookie deals, all while collecting more lotto balls.

But this season, I am not so sure it would have worked that way.

Magliore takes up a lot of space and does snatch a lot of boards (though many from the hands of his own teammates). But he is awful offensively. And I wonder about the wisdom of his regular playing time when he seems to be a matchup player in today's small-ball NBA. In comes LaMarcus to the rescue. Or so it would seem obvious to most.

Dixon had his role last season. He is a defensive liability. But he wasn't half bad on the offensive end - if streaky. And he would pull the trigger when nobody else would. This season however, he has had too few hot nights to justify many minutes at all. On a good team, he would be in any coaches doghouse. I can't explain his regression. Nor can I explain his piss poor play keeping Sergio and Webster off the floor.

Thus I am left with the million dollar question?

If we are not winning more games playing Dixon and Big Cat, and if winning games isn't even the main goal this season, what the hell is going on?

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Blazers.htm

Magliore PER 10.7
LaMarcus PER 15.5

Dixon PER 10.6
Serio PER 15.7
Webster PER 11.4


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Blazers.htm
> 
> Magliore PER 10.7
> LaMarcus PER 15.5
> ...


I think that pretty much says it all right there. 

You'd think Nate would at least look at recent history in evaluating players. Remember Van Exel, Stoudamire, Anderson and Rahim? Looking back, was it a good idea to play those guys in their final seasons over guys like Telfair, Outlaw and Khryapa? I can't see any reason why it was. We lost and lost and lost, and didn't maximize court time for our youth. 

In fact, we might have gotten even more in trade out of Khryapa and Telfair if we'd been showcasing them more instead of the expiring veterans. And this year's version of Outlaw might've happened last year. 

You can go all the way back to Dale Davis starting over Zach Randolph. It seems like we've had this issue of playing veterans over young up-and-comers for a long time. It's not a bad idea if you are contending (it was the smart thing to do for Dunleavy to bench Jermaine for more experience), but on a rebuilding team? What's the point?


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

I am with Soda and others on this one. I do like Nate and his hardline mentality and his emphasis on defense. I think that there are times where yes, X and 0 's wise he does get out coached, all bet it not on any regular basis. This mostly comes in the form of when a team can shutdown/ slow down Z-Bo, Nate really can get baffled. He seems to be unsure of whether he wants to just Iso Roy or use him in a team offense.

My biggest beef with Nate has been his rotations and line up. While I do not think that Jack-Roy-Udoka-Randolph-Pryzbilla is a bad starting line up, I think it leaves our 2nd unit with people that do not play well together. Mostly Outlaw, who Nate tends to call on to be a slashing/scoring threat in the 2nd unit, which he can not do in a primary or second option role. I believe Travis should start because he does his best when he is not dependent on to be a first or second option. He plays great as a complementary offensive player and help defensive player. He will be able to get the ball off Randolph doubles and Roy/Jack penetrations. This is where Nate needs to tell him and grill into him, that when he gets the ball off a double, where someone is closing on him from a medium distance from the hoop...TAKE IT TO THE RACK!:curse: His slashing and dunking is something where if he has the first step, he is truly something special. He needs to not be so quick to shoot the J.

And for god's sake, get Aldridge out of the first layer of warm up clothes.:mad2:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Nate needs to get this team to stop trying to force feed Randolph every freaking time down the court. The blazers need to put their little pea brains together and come up with some other ways to score!!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Nate needs to get this team to stop trying to force feed Randolph every freaking time down the court. The blazers need to put their little pea brains together and come up with some other ways to score!!





Wait just a cotton pickin minute there youngin. You say there are other ways to score besides forcing the ball into the same player every single time down the floor? Wow, thing really have changed since the 50's


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Magliore PER 10.7
> LaMarcus PER 15.5
> 
> Dixon PER 10.6
> ...



Wow.

It's seems so obvious when you see that. 

Even more obvious than when you see them play.

Actually, no, it's REALLY obvious when you see them play.

So how come some people can't see it?

If Nate is not careful, he is gonna get fired, and the next coach will get the reward of having all these great young players. Assuming HE actually plays them.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

drexlersdad said:


> Wow.
> 
> It's seems so obvious when you see that.
> 
> ...



TP would definately play the young guys. He or Iavaroni......Wow, a fast break in Portland I'm giddy just thinking about it.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

> This is a good point, and I could see an argument for saying our record would be worse - maybe much worse - without Nate. But the counterargument is that our record this year isn't actually all that important - we know we aren't playoff bound, and whether we win 15 or 35 games this year just doesn't matter in the long run.
> 
> The argument goes, we should be preparing for the future, and playing Jamaal and Juan isn't doing anything but buying a few more wins this year (at best) at the expense of wins next year. That argument might be wrong - it may be that players do learn more from practice than games, for instance - but that's the argument.
> 
> ...



Your points are both valid and logical...

All I'm thinking is that Nate is doing what he thinks is best for his team and his coaching career. I think people often overlook that coaches are trying to keep a job, just like players are trying to keep their job. 

There is a reason a players don't happily give up valuable minutes to someone else, because contract time it will hurt their salary or chance to sign with another team. Coaches who play young players, often to lose, and then watch the NEXT coach lead those players to success. Why would you want to be that coach?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> Your points are both valid and logical...
> 
> All I'm thinking is that Nate is doing what he thinks is best for his team and his coaching career. I think people often overlook that coaches are trying to keep a job, just like players are trying to keep their job.
> 
> There is a reason a players don't happily give up valuable minutes to someone else, because contract time it will hurt their salary or chance to sign with another team. Coaches who play young players, often to lose, and then watch the NEXT coach lead those players to success. Why would you want to be that coach?




That's a great point that I know goes overlooked by me. I would say though that playing Aldridge over Magloire, and you or I over Dixon wouldn't hurt the teams chances of winning. It would also make Nate a very popular coach amonst fans. Happy fans equal bigger gats, and bigger gates equal happier owners, and happy owners don't fire coaches making them money.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> There is a reason a players don't happily give up valuable minutes to someone else, because contract time it will hurt their salary or chance to sign with another team. Coaches who play young players, often to lose, and then watch the NEXT coach lead those players to success. Why would you want to be that coach?


Normally that's a pretty good argument. After all, Larry Brown is famous for resurrecting mediocre franchise while also being famous for not playing rookies. More veterans almost always equal more immediate wins, which is all coaches generally care about in the "What Have You Done For Me Lately" NBA. 

However, Nate's got one of the fattest, longest contracts among NBA coaches. Hopefully, we did that for two reasons:
1. Because it was the only way to pry him from Seattle.
2. He could do what was right for the long-term benefit of the team and not care about winning now. 

It's looking to me like reason #1 is the only reason he's internalized.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Anytime a coach's substitution patterns seem confusing you can bet there are factor's other than the obvious at play.

Patterson/Allen are still telling him who to play/showcase and I'm sick and tired of it.

Please, anyone out there want to buy the team?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Anytime a coach's substitution patterns seem confusing you can bet there are factor's other than the obvious at play.
> 
> Patterson/Allen are still telling him who to play/showcase and I'm sick and tired of it.
> 
> Please, anyone out there want to buy the team?



No. There is no proof at all that this is happening. Magloire like Blake before him played well in a couple of games so Nate overreacted and played him way more than he should. Magloire also doesn't make the mental mistakes that Nate hates from rookies. Do not blame management for something the coach said he would not do. Yes our own Mr. Sonic made it well known that he would play the players that deserved to play and it was his decision on who to play period. It's everyone's coach of the year that is implementing the line ups


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> No. There is no proof at all that this is happening. Magloire like Blake before him played well in a couple of games so Nate overreacted and played him way more than he should. Magloire also doesn't make the mental mistakes that Nate hates from rookies. Do not blame management for something the coach said he would not do. Yes our own Mr. Sonic made it well known that he would play the players that deserved to play and it was his decision on who to play period. It's everyone's coach of the year that is implementing the line ups


No. There is no proof of what you're saying either.

By the way, Nate is our coach's name, not Mr. Sonic. Perhaps you missed that in your literature packet.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> No. There is no proof of what you're saying either.
> 
> By the way, Nate is our coach's name, not Mr. Sonic. Perhaps you missed that in your literature packet.




Nathaniel "Nate" McMillan (born August 3, 1964 in Raleigh, North Carolina) is a former professional basketball player and current head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers. Prior to his coaching stint with the Blazers, McMillan was head coach of the Seattle SuperSonics for five years, after succeeding Paul Westphal in 2000. Between 1998 and 2000 he served as an assistant coach for the team. McMillan spent twelve years playing for the Sonics, from 1986 to 1998. He attended Raleigh's Enloe High School , where he went unnoticed by major college scouts. After a brief but great basketball career at Chowan College in Murfreesboro, North Carolina, he returned to Raleigh to play for Jim Valvano at North Carolina State University, before being drafted by the Sonics.

After 19 years with the Seattle organization, McMillan left Seattle on July 7, 2005 to become the head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers.

During his 12 year player career, McMillan put up career averages of 5.9 points, 6.1 assists and 1.9 steals. He still shares (with Ernie DiGregorio) the NBA rookie record for assists in a single game with 25. McMillan was known for his superb defense, leading the NBA in steals per game for the 1993-94 season and being named to the NBA All-Defensive Second Team for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons. Known as "Mr. Sonic" for his 19 years of service to the team, his #10 jersey was retired by the Sonics. McMillan is the only NBA player to have his jersey retired without ever being selected to an All-Star team.

Prior to the 2004-05 season in which the Sonics posted a 52-30 record, the Sonics considered firing McMillan for poor performance.

McMillan's abrupt departure from Seattle has caused much discomfort among fans of the team; many who view it as an act of betrayal (especially since McMillan is now working for the rival Trail Blazers). Some Sonic fans feel he should be stripped of the "Mr. Sonic" title after supposedly "abandoning" their franchise for more money. Nate claims that he did not accept the Blazer's offer because of the money but because he liked the situation and opportunity.



Wikipedia refers to him twice as Mr. Sonic. I also love their tidbit about almost being fired. Yet a lot of people here think he's a great coach


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

I know Nate is so well thought of in the coaching community, Coack K's made him one of his primary assistants to coach the US Olympic Team.

Nate McMillan. Mike D'Antoni. Nate's fellow coaches think he's at that level of expertise.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Wikipedia refers to him twice as Mr. Sonic. I also love their tidbit about almost being fired. Yet a lot of people here think he's a great coach


Blah blah blah... First of all, that wasn't even the item we were discussing, but I like how you just danced around it Mr. Matador. Secondly, Mr. Sonic TO FANS IN SEATTLE. I don't know about you, but I live in Portland. Finally, Schilly (or someone similar) debunked your whole "Nate's record" argument last week in a post. Thoroughly, completely, and without argument by you I might add, debunked it. So drop and move on to your next pet peeve, please.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> I know Nate is so well thought of in the coaching community, Coack K's made him one of his primary assistants to coach the US Olympic Team.
> 
> Nate McMillan. Mike D'Antoni. Nate's fellow coaches think he's at that level of expertise.


He was probably chosen to the coaching squad because he's black, and they didn't want Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whining about there not being enough black coaches on the olympic team.

Get mad, but I speak the truth. You all know it deep down in the inner recesses of your soul.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> He was probably chosen to the coaching squad because he's black, and they didn't want Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whining about there not being enough black coaches on the olympic team.
> 
> Get mad, but I speak the truth. You all know it deep down in the inner recesses of your soul.



That's it. The white coach got the job because he deserved it, the Black coach got his job because of the color of his skin.

And the saddest comment to this post is you truly believe that you "speak the truth" . . . proof this thought process continues to exist.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> He was probably chosen to the coaching squad because he's black, and they didn't want Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whining about there not being enough black coaches on the olympic team.
> 
> Get mad, but I speak the truth. You all know it deep down in the inner recesses of your soul.


I honestly don't care if this gets me in trouble, but deleted, as you knew it would be....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Prior to the 2004-05 season in which the Sonics posted a 52-30 record, the Sonics considered firing McMillan for poor performance.


this is the same franchise that then hired Bobby Weiss..only to can his sorry *** weeks into the season.



> McMillan's abrupt departure from Seattle has caused much discomfort among fans of the team; many who view it as an act of betrayal (especially since McMillan is now working for the rival Trail Blazers). Some Sonic fans feel he should be stripped of the "Mr. Sonic" title after supposedly "abandoning" their franchise for more money. Nate claims that he did not accept the Blazer's offer because of the money but because he liked the situation and opportunity.


I did a little research a while back, and it showed that when Nate was given a healthy team (with Gary Payton there, and with Ray Allen there) his winning % was much higher than you give him credit for. If you take the best player off ANY team, they're going to struggle. 



> Wikipedia refers to him twice as Mr. Sonic. I also love their tidbit about almost being fired. Yet a lot of people here think he's a great coach


If you have to resort to wikipedia to make a point, I'm really not sure it's a point worth making. For gods sake, if you wanted to add yourself to the "notable alumni" at your college, you can.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Regarding Nate's last season in Seattle ...

First, he was given that roster at the beginning of the season -- one that had underachieved the prior season -- and the front office said, "this is a playoff team." In doing so, they set McMillan up for failure: if the Sonics didn't make the playoffs in '04-'05, he would take the hit for not meeting expectations. 

It was his contract year, so if the Sonics didn't do well, the fans could blame McMillan, and the front office could save face and not have to fire him.

And he did say in interviews with the local media that money was a part of the decision; he never said it was his primary goal, but he did say that compensation was a part of it. Whether that means Portland offered him a ton more or Seattle made a poor offer, I don't know.

I don't think we're getting outcoached -- the Philly game is a prime example of that. They made a run in the third, staved off the Blazers in the fourth, and let's be honest: they stumbled to the finish line in that game. The way I look at it, Philly didn't win the game ... they just happened not to lose by accident.

Mo Cheeks didn't outcoach McMillan -- in the final four minutes, Iggy missed a wide open dunk, Philly missed 4 of 6 free throws, their defense collapsed, and the only thing that prevented overtime was a no-call.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> He was probably chosen to the coaching squad because he's black, and they didn't want Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whining about there not being enough black coaches on the olympic team.
> 
> Get mad, but I speak the truth. You all know it deep down in the inner recesses of your soul.


Is it a personal attack to call someone a racist when they clearly are?

I don't know. Let's not find out.

barfo

Purely hypothetical of course...


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> I honestly don't care if this gets me in trouble, but deleted, as you knew it would be....



It's ok, I know what you said.

I too think it's a shame that discussions here often devolve into name-calling as well.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> It's ok, I know what you said.
> 
> I too think it's a shame that discussions here often devolve into name-calling as well.


wait, I'm bald?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> He was probably chosen to the coaching squad because he's black, and they didn't want Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton whining about there not being enough black coaches on the olympic team.
> 
> Get mad, but I speak the truth. You all know it deep down in the inner recesses of your soul.


Truth isn't probable , it is definate. So to say "Probably", you are speaking an opinion, or speculation on your own behalf.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

Yega1979 said:


> It's ok, I know what you said.
> 
> I too think it's a shame that discussions here often devolve into name-calling as well.


The guy who posted that the only reason Nate got a coaching job is because he's black is talking about what a shame it is discussions devolve into name-calling? :whofarted


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Wikipedia refers to him twice as Mr. Sonic. I also love their tidbit about almost being fired. Yet a lot of people here think he's a great coach


I certainly don't think he's a great coach, but this is extremely dubious logic.

After all, Larry brown is considered a great coach, and has been fired a lot (I wonder if he holds the record for most firings in the NBA, wouldn't shock me). Lenny Wilkins is the winningest coach in NBA history and has been fired multiple times. Fratello is generally considered a very good coach, and he just got fired. I could go on, but I think this makes the point. Coaches can get fired (or be close to getting fired) and still be a good coach.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Foulzilla said:


> I certainly don't think he's a great coach, but this is extremely dubious logic.
> 
> After all, Larry brown is considered a great coach, and has been fired a lot (I wonder if he holds the record for most firings in the NBA, wouldn't shock me). Lenny Wilkins is the winningest coach in NBA history and has been fired multiple times. Fratello is generally considered a very good coach, and he just got fired. I could go on, but I think this makes the point. Coaches can get fired (or be close to getting fired) and still be a good coach.


I'm thinking Larry holds the record for resigning the most times, but not firing...that would be an interesting stat to look up!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Am I wrong? Was Nate selected to be an olympic coach because of his stellar sub .500 career coaching record?

I am not a racist at all, I'm a realist. I live in the real world. 

Guys like Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP do and will raise a stink if they see "not enough blacks here or there". Just ask Matt Millen who was fined $500,000 for not hiring a black coach!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Am I wrong? Was Nate selected to be an olympic coach because of his stellar sub .500 career coaching record?
> 
> I am not a racist at all, I'm a realist. I live in the real world.
> 
> Guys like Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP do and will raise a stink if they see "not enough blacks here or there". Just ask Matt Millen who was fined $500,000 for not hiring a black coach!


Your getting it all wrong. 

Millen wasn't fined for not 'hiring' a black coach. He was fined for not interviewing a black coach. Johnny Cochrane won a case back in the late 90's that made it so out every 5 or so (I can't remember the exact number) coaches interviewed at least one black coach should be interviewed. I think its a pretty fair rule considering how many minority coaches haven't received a fair shake in pro sports.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

Yega1979 said:


> Am I wrong? Was Nate selected to be an olympic coach because of his stellar sub .500 career coaching record?
> 
> I am not a racist at all, I'm a realist. I live in the real world.
> 
> Guys like Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP do and will raise a stink if they see "not enough blacks here or there". Just ask Matt Millen who was fined $500,000 for not hiring a black coach!












"NEWS- Vandalized: Goode's C'ville office hit

Published Januay 4, 2007 in issue 0601 of the HooK.

By LISA PROVENCE [email protected]

At first glance, the window on 1st Street seems normal enough: "Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Fifth District, Virginia." Underneath, carefully stenciled in gold paint, as if to meet the approval of the Board of Architectural Review: "BIGOT."

Goode garnered national attention before Christmas with his comments on freshman Minnesota congressman-elect Keith Ellison's plan to be sworn into office using the Muslim holy book, the Koran. 

In a December 5 email, Goode warned that Americans should "wake up" or else there would "likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Ellison is an African-American and a Muslim.

Goode, who will take his oath of office on the Bible, told constituents, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

In the subsequent national outcry, Goode, a Republican who was just reelected to his fifth term in the House, remained unrepentant for the furor his remarks caused and has refused to apologize...."

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2007/01/04/NEWS-goode-A.rtf.aspx

-----------------

Yeah... and it's just a coincidence that that there isn't one single black driver or black administrator of any kind in NASCAR too, right?


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

phhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!! to all this talk of black coaches and whatnot. I wish that stuff would just go away. Maurice Cheeks coulda been blue and watching him sit there with his hand in his face while the team is getting wasted would make me want him gone no matter what. 

Nate is a smart guy, I just don't like the way he coaches either. 

As for the whole muslim thing this politician said, good for him. It also said he didn't apologize, even better. I hate people that believe something and then apologize because the majority, or even vocal minority demands it.


----------



## bodyman5001 (Jul 1, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> Your getting it all wrong.
> 
> Millen wasn't fined for not 'hiring' a black coach. He was fined for not interviewing a black coach. Johnny Cochrane won a case back in the late 90's that made it so out every 5 or so (I can't remember the exact number) coaches interviewed at least one black coach should be interviewed. I think its a pretty fair rule considering how many minority coaches haven't received a fair shake in pro sports.


I wouldn't say that he was all wrong then. The actual truth makes it even worse. Most of the time these people know who they want to hire ahead of time anyway. If I were Millen I would have interviewed 20 black coaches and just one white one and hired the white one if I wanted. What a stupid rule, let's FORCE people to do things that they should just want to do on their own anyway. People often do the opposite if you try to make them do something.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

bodyman5001 said:


> I wouldn't say that he was all wrong then. The actual truth makes it even worse. Most of the time these people know who they want to hire ahead of time anyway. If I were Millen I would have interviewed 20 black coaches and just one white one and hired the white one if I wanted. What a stupid rule, let's FORCE people to do things that they should just want to do on their own anyway. People often do the opposite if you try to make them do something.


Millen invited several black coaches in for an interview and THEY TURNED HIM DOWN. What was he supposed to do? Go capture one and bring him in, in chains?

He was made an example of to appease the political pressures being put on the NFL at the time to have more black coaches.

He was brought on because he's black, plain and simple. It's the truth of the matter, no matter how much you no personal attacks, please want to deny reality and throw out idiotic accusations.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> He was brought on because he's black, plain and simple. It's the truth of the matter, no matter how much you no personal attacks, please want to deny reality and throw out idiotic accusations.


What evidence do you have to support this 'truth'? How do you know why he was chosen? There are lots of coaches, and there are lots of black coaches. Why Nate specifically?

Unless you have something to back up your claim, it seems to me you are giving us your opinion and speculation and insisting it is 'the truth'.

barfo


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

The mere fact that Goode and Ellison claim belief in 2 different mythological tales as a basis for their fitness to serve this country in the 21st century makes the whole arguement a moot point.

They would be better served to learn the basics of scientific fact, starting with The Dark Ages (where their thinking now resides) and moving forward until they catch up with the real world.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

Yega1979 said:


> Millen invited several black coaches in for an interview and THEY TURNED HIM DOWN. What was he supposed to do? Go capture one and bring him in, in chains?
> 
> He was made an example of to appease the political pressures being put on the NFL at the time to have more black coaches.
> 
> He was brought on because he's black, plain and simple. It's the truth of the matter, no matter how much you want to deny reality and throw out idiotic accusations.


Another supertanker load of liquefied feces from Yega...

"Uneven playing field
By Terry Bowden, Yahoo! Sports
June 30, 2005 

The Black Coaches Association Hiring Report Card came out this month, and when it comes to hiring black head coaches, big-time college football gets a big-time "F."

There are 117 colleges participating in Division I-A football and there are only three black head coaches. You don't have to be too smart to know how stupid this looks.

Let me lay it out for you:

*# Fifty percent black athletes leads to 25 percent black assistant coaches leads to 3 percent black head coaches.

# Fifty percent white athletes leads to 75 percent white assistant coaches leads to 97 percent white head coaches.*

A profession that so desperately seeks a level playing field offers nothing close to one for the black athlete who aspires to rise to the pinnacle of the college coaching profession.

*Plainly and simply, folks, this is discrimination.* More precisely this is one of the last and greatest bastions of discrimination within all of American sports...."

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=tb-minoritycoaches062905&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Millen only had a couple of choices of Black Coaches to interview because THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF BLACK NFL COACH CANDIDATES that have gotten through the cesspool of racism that football coaching is to build resumes sufficient to compete for NFL head coach jobs. Blacks are discriminated against at every level of coaching...from entry level high school and college coaching jobs all the way through the coaching system to the top marquee coaching jobs.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't proclaim for a second that I know who the top 117 best coaches would be for division 1A football, but is it possible that either 

a. The coaches in possition already are the best candidates
b. The white candidates for the openings are just more qualified



Maybe we should pass another law stating that regardless of your skill level you can only be hired if the company doesn't have enough white people working at it already


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> I don't proclaim for a second that I know who the top 117 best coaches would be for division 1A football, but is it possible that either
> 
> a. The coaches in possition already are the best candidates


Of course not.



mediocre man said:


> b. The white candidates for the openings are just more qualified


That's what white supremacists claim. ONLY white supremacists make such claims.




mediocre man said:


> Maybe we should pass another law stating that regardless of your skill level you can only be hired if the company doesn't have enough white people working at it already


Sounds like a white supremacist group policy proposal. You been posting articles at stormfront.org, MM?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You say of course not, but how do you know?

PLease remember, that I was not making these claims, just throwing the suggestion out there

Please stop calling me a white supremacist. But let me guess....

OJ was innocent
The kids on the Duke lacrosse team were guilty
Art Shell didn't get fired because he only won 2 games
The reason we are going after Bonds has nothing to do with his sudden increase in home runs, but ONLY because he is black
The black kids in my neighborhood didn't have the same opportunities as me simply because they were black


Am I close?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> He was brought on because he's black, plain and simple. It's the truth of the matter, no matter how much you no personal attacks, please want to deny reality and throw out idiotic accusations.


What a load of racist crap.

Just because you feel that black people are inferior and could only be hired based on discrimination doesn't mean squat except that you have very racist views.

McMillan is a successful up and coming coach in the NBA. Despite his struggles in Portland, I think most people around the league would agree with this. 

He's no Pat Riley, but neither is, well, Pat Riley...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> What a load of racist crap.
> 
> Just because you feel that black people are inferior and could only be hired based on discrimination doesn't mean squat except that you have very racist views.
> 
> ...




Totally agree...er almost. While I don't think Nate is a good coach, I think it's stupid to think he was hired simply because he is black. The Blazers think(thought) he was the best person for the job and snagged him from a rival team.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Totally agree...er almost. *While I don't think Nate is a good coach*, I think it's stupid to think he was hired simply because he is black. The Blazers think(thought) he was the best person for the job and snagged him from a rival team.


Yeah, that's why I said _most_...


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> You say of course not, but how do you know?
> 
> PLease remember, that I was not making these claims, just throwing the suggestion out there


ONLY white supremacists "throw" prejudiced suggestions like these "out there" to foul up the shared commons.





mediocre man said:


> Please stop calling me a white supremacist.


If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck...




mediocre man said:


> But let me guess....
> OJ was innocent


But let me guess... you want to distract this topic and keep flinging feces at a wall until some sewage sticks.... Okay... I'll play...

I lived in LA, and was dating someone living in Brentwood 4 streets E of OJ's street during the trial. The LAPD fouled up the case the case from the very beginning. Here's something only people in LA heard from the people that were OJ's neighbors. 

The LAPD never even looked at the most violent person present at the crime scene that night... OJ's older son. OJ's older son beat a work supervisor unconscious within a couple of months of the murders, had a long history of violent acts, and was using the same street drugs Nicole and Ron used regularly. His blood may have also tested positive on those early DNA tests. Convicting OJ's SON isn't the "big story" that convicting OJ would be for the LAPD and LA Prosecutors Office though, is it.




mediocre man said:


> The kids on the Duke lacrosse team were guilty


The kids on the Duke lacrosse team shouldn't have been had coaches that look the other way while having team parties with prostitutes. Everyone in Duke Athletic Director's office should be fired.



mediocre man said:


> Art Shell didn't get fired because he only won 2 games


Don't know enough about Art Shell situation to comment.



mediocre man said:


> The reason we are going after Bonds has nothing to do with his sudden increase in home runs, but ONLY because he is black


Show me the an equally vigorous investigation of Mark McGuire after McGuire showed up after a couple of years away from baseball at a congressional hearing looking like a deflated balloon. Oh... there isn't an one, is there?



mediocre man said:


> The black kids in my neighborhood didn't have the same opportunities as me simply because they were black


The black kids in other neighborhoods don't. Black kids that can't afford houses in your suburban enclave should not be denied the same opportunities you get.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Glad to see that someone complaining about others ignorant statements now jumps in with their own.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> ONLY white supremacists "throw" prejudiced suggestions like these "out there" to foul up the shared commons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for clearing up who and what you are.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Don't know enough about Art Shell situation to comment.


Or anything else.

Take your hate, your weak grasp of the basic tools of the English language, and your total lack of understanding of basketball, and fade into the virtual sunset.

Please.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Thank you for clearing up who and what you are.



Yeah... part of the huge majority of normal, everyday, mainstream-thinking Americans who's voice gets drowned out by very small group of loud radical extremists like mediocre man, Yega1979, and MARIS61.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> Take your hate....


Sorry... it's mediocre man, Yega1979, and MARIS61 filling posts here with endless rants about all the people they hate.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

cpawfan said:


> Glad to see that someone complaining about others ignorant statements now jumps in with their own.


Looks like someone other than me recognized what's going on here...



Chan said:


> Direct stuff like racial slurs and extremely negative generalizations is not allowed. But you can find your way around it with racial implications. Those techniques are usually done by some mods or admins, because they are smart enough not to break the rules.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> Looks like someone other than me recognized what's going on here...


You calling a poster a white supremacists is far worse than anything you are accusing another poster of doing.

We strive our best here at basketballforum.com to make this a place for everyone, but we do have our rules. Unfortunately, those rules mean some people just aren't able to post here.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

cpawfan said:


> You calling a poster a white supremacists is far worse than anything you are accusing another poster of doing.


I'm not "calling" anyone anything. mediocre man said...



mediocre man said:


> I don't proclaim for a second that I know who the top 117 best coaches would be for division 1A football, but is it possible that either
> 
> a. The coaches in possition already are the best candidates
> b. The white candidates for the openings are just more qualified
> ...


That kind of thinking is DEFINED as white supremacist in nature.




cpawfan said:


> We strive our best here at basketballforum.com to make this a place for everyone, but we do have our rules. Unfortunately, those rules mean some people just aren't able to post here.


No you don't. You think members of minority groups are going to be comfortable around here with statements like the above one left on the boards by moderators?

The selective enforcement of rules here makes sure minorities know they are not welcome here. Tolerated maybe as long as they "know their place", but certainly not welcome.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> I'm not "calling" anyone anything. mediocre man said...
> 
> That kind of thinking is DEFINED as white supremacist in nature.


No, no it isn't. 




> No you don't. You think minorities members are going to be comfortable around here with statements like the above one left on the boards by moderators.
> 
> The selective enforcement of rules here makes sure minorities know they are not welcome here. Tolerated maybe as long as they "know their place", but certainly not welcome.


You are completely off base and are tilting at windmills at this point. There is no selective enforcement, but if you seriously believe that there is, you are more than welcome to post some place else.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> I'm not "calling" anyone anything. mediocre man said...
> "Maybe we should pass another law stating that regardless of your skill level you can only be hired if the company doesn't have enough white people working at it already".
> 
> That kind of thinking is DEFINED as white supremacist in nature.


No, it isn't. It's SARCASM. One of those basic tools of English I referred to earlier. Your failure to recognize it's use has sent you down some dead-end paths in at least 2 threads so far.

Main Entry: sar·casm 
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
synonym see WIT 

Learn it.

Have some fun with it.



Blazers Pantheon said:


> The selective enforcement of rules here makes sure minorities know they are not welcome here. Tolerated maybe as long as they "know their place", but certainly not welcome.


You are *so *far off base.:lol:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

You might also want to define satirical Maris.....just in case


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

cpawfan said:


> No, no it isn't.


"White Supremacy is the belief that members of the Caucasian race are superior in all ways to other groups or races in the world. In the history of the United States, white supremacy has existed as a means of justifying and preserving the nation as a white Christian country. The history of white supremacy is closely tied to the presence of slavery and the emergence, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, of the theories and categorizations of groups and nations into races. In the United States the presence of slavery and its continuance and growth in the South served as a strong foundation for white supremacy. Also important was immigration, first of the Irish and later of eastern and Mediterranean Europeans, which heightened the belief in the superiority of whiteness, defined as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

The key group representing white supremacy was the Ku Klux Klan. Founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866 by Confederate colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest, its aim was to preserve the traditions of the Old South, which for the Klan focused primarily around the suppression of African Americans and the protection of white women. In its evolution during the early twentieth century, the Klan came to stand for "100 percent pure Americanism," a fervent belief in Protestant Christianity, and a staunch opposition to immigration. But still there remained a rock solid belief in the moral, intellectual, and physical superiority of white people. Through the years the Klan fragmented, reemerging at various periods; the largest regrouping occurred after World War I. The Klan arose again in the 1960s and 1970s as the civil rights movement was successfully attaining the desegregation of public accommodations and voting rights for black Americans. In the 1980s and 1990s the Klan once again appeared, but other groups formed in that period which also espoused white supremacy or ***********.

A full generation after the successes of the civil rights movement, many white Americans exhibit an increased tolerance of African Americans and a growing acceptance of racial equality. Nonetheless, the ethic of white supremacy is still very strong among some white Americans, namely those belonging or sympathetic to groups formed in the late twentieth century such as Posse Comitatus, the National Association for the Advancement of White People, the American Nazi Party, Aryan Nations, and World Church of the Creator. These groups have tried to recruit young people and have numerous sites on the Internet. They can be violent physically, with most of their attacks directed toward blacks, Jews, and immigrants. Their main goal is to return the nation to white people, root out what they see as a conspiracy between blacks and Jews to eliminate the white race, and regain pride and power for whites...."

http://www.answers.com/topic/white-supremacy




cpawfan said:


> You are completely off base and are tilting at windmills at this point. There is no selective enforcement, but if you seriously believe that there is, you are more than welcome to post some place else.


Are you refusing to have moderators remove racist content?

Yes.

Then I'm not off base, am I?

We've entered the point of the conversation where you are about to tell me I have be tolerant of racist content, right?

I can tell you one thing... whether I have an account here...

...or whether some moderator decided I'm not being tolerant enough of racist content and deletes my account...

...the racist content on this board has now been noticed. Having been identified, do you think the NBA is going to allow their logos and trademarks to be used by a website identified harbor for prejudice against minorities?

Some people have gotten away with prejudiced behavior on a website featuring NBA and NBA team logos and trademarks because nobody important knew it was happening. If it continues beyond this point... important people will be notified.

If it it continues to escalate here... important people off-site... where your moderator "powers" mean nothing... will be informed. Just how far do you want this to go?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> You might also want to define satirical Maris.....just in case


Baby steps, mm.

Baby steps.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> "White Supremacy is the belief that members of the Caucasian race are superior in all ways to other groups or races in the world. In the history of the United States, white supremacy has existed as a means of justifying and preserving the nation as a white Christian country. The history of white supremacy is closely tied to the presence of slavery and the emergence, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, of the theories and categorizations of groups and nations into races. In the United States the presence of slavery and its continuance and growth in the South served as a strong foundation for white supremacy. Also important was immigration, first of the Irish and later of eastern and Mediterranean Europeans, which heightened the belief in the superiority of whiteness, defined as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
> 
> The key group representing white supremacy was the Ku Klux Klan. Founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866 by Confederate colonel Nathan Bedford Forrest, its aim was to preserve the traditions of the Old South, which for the Klan focused primarily around the suppression of African Americans and the protection of white women. In its evolution during the early twentieth century, the Klan came to stand for "100 percent pure Americanism," a fervent belief in Protestant Christianity, and a staunch opposition to immigration. But still there remained a rock solid belief in the moral, intellectual, and physical superiority of white people. Through the years the Klan fragmented, reemerging at various periods; the largest regrouping occurred after World War I. The Klan arose again in the 1960s and 1970s as the civil rights movement was successfully attaining the desegregation of public accommodations and voting rights for black Americans. In the 1980s and 1990s the Klan once again appeared, but other groups formed in that period which also espoused white supremacy or ***********.
> 
> ...



Wow, when did I ever say that I was better than anyone else...exept yak, but he knows that . All I said was that how do any of us know about the coaching ranks, and the people qualified for the jobs. The same stupid argument you are trying to make can be made for our own little Blazer team. Why is it Stephen Graham was on this team instead of Luke Jackson? Oh my God it's because Jackson is white, and there is a bias that only black people are good at basketball. There, now we both sound stupid. I hope this makes you feel a little less exposed.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> "White Supremacy is the belief that members of the Caucasian race are superior in all ways to other groups or races in the world.


There is nothing in the comments you quoted that meet that criteria.



> Are you refusing to have moderators remove racist content?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Then I'm not off base, am I?


No, you are not correct. We're not removing ignorant content. As an example, I'm not removing you calling someone a white supremacist, which is extremely ignorant.



> We've entered the point of the conversation where you are about to tell me I have be tolerant of racist content, right?


No, I'm telling you that your definition of racist content isn't correct.



> I can tell you one thing... whether I have an account here...
> 
> ...or whether some moderator decided I'm not being tolerant enough of racist content and deletes my account...
> 
> ...


Do what you feel that you have to do.


----------



## Blazers Pantheon (Jan 1, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> No, it isn't. It's SARCASM. One of those basic tools of English I referred to earlier. Your failure to recognize it's use has sent you down some dead-end paths in at least 2 threads so far.
> 
> Main Entry: sar·casm
> Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
> ...


We're used to the talking point script.

1) Right wing extremist says bigoted remark.

2) Right wing extremist stalwartly refuses to apologize for bigoted remark.

3) Right wing extremist claims bigoted remark was a joke.

4) Right wing extremist apologizes. Agrees to attend "cultural sensitivity" classes.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> ...If it continues beyond this point... important people will be notified.
> 
> If it it continues to escalate here... important people off-site... where your moderator "powers" mean nothing... will be informed. Just how far do you want this to go?


mm and I have been notified.

You can relax now.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)




----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Anyone else want to sing my version of "One Bad Apple" by the Osmonds?

I can tell you've been hurt 
by that look on your face, Pantheon. 
Some guy brought sad into your happy world. 
You need love, but you're afraid that if you give in, 
someone else will come along 
and sock it to ya again. 

One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, Pantheon. 
Oh, give it one more try before you give up on love. 
One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch Pantheon. 
Oh, I don't care what they say, 
I don't care what you heard. 

This forum could make you happy, Pantheon, 
satisfy you, too. 
But how can we if you won't give us a chance 
to prove our love to you? 
Won't you just give us one chance? 
I'll give you my guarantee that you won't be hurt again.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Todd said:


>



A tool would have worked as well


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazers Pantheon said:


> We're used to the talking point script.


There you go referring to yourself in the plural again.

I know you're no King.

Maybe you're an Earl, or a Duke?

:whoknows:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Come on guys..let's not go down this obvious OT path in a basketball forum. And stop egging each other on... Can someone just close the thread?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Come on guys..let's not go down this obvious OT path in a basketball forum. And stop egging each other on... Can someone just close the thread?



OMG, you are actually making sense this time. LOL I agree, no reason to keep this thread open. Nothing good will come from it. Let's get back to me trying toconvince yak that nate is an idiot, and yak trying to convince me that he's not.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Nice image. Closed.

barfo


----------

