# Artest Not Allowed In Playoffs



## Kneejoh

David Stern replied " No way" when asked if Ron Artest would be allowed to come back for the playoffs.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2018945 



> Stern acknowledged that he had considered shortening Artest's suspension.
> 
> "At a certain point in the last week or two we decided the most important thing here is Ron's return to the NBA and the best path for that is through a program in which he's now engaged," Stern told The Star.





> After leaving the door open for Ron Artest's possible return to the NBA this season, commissioner David Stern closed off that possibility on Monday.
> 
> "Our goal is to do everything we possibly can to ensure Ron's return to the NBA next season is as smooth as it can possibly be," Stern told The Indianapolis Star.
> 
> "There's a lot of things we're participating in to that end and we're confident he'll be back as a contributing member of the Pacers and the NBA next season."


----------



## Kneejoh

I think it's a ***** *** move by Stern, as soon as he saw that the Pacers would make the playoffs he said Artest wouldn't be allowed to play in the playoffs.

*edited: No masked cursing*


----------



## SeaNet

The 100% right decision. Can't believe he ever considered lessening the suspension.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> The 100% right decision. Can't believe he ever considered lessening the suspension.


Artest penalty was too harsh IMO. Stern was just playing favourites by only giving Ben Wallace 6 games and Artest gets 70+. Thats BS by the NBA.


----------



## socco

SeaNet said:


> Can't believe he ever considered lessening the suspension.


Me too. The guy's a complete retard, it's shocking that he would think about doing the right thing.


----------



## SeaNet

This wasn't an isolated incident w/ Artest, he's been completely out of control for quite some time. David Stern has been very clear in the past that continued transgressions get you harsher penalties. And you know what? His stance has worked.  Kmart, Sheed, etc. Artest needed a bigtime smackdown to let him know that he's got to shape up or there won't be a place for him in the NBA. Stern's been plenty patient w/ him in the past. You just can't attack spectators and precipitate a riot. Its entirely unacceptable, no matter how you were provoked. Behaviour like that can take down a league, and its Stern's job not to let that happen. Artest is not someone you can give an inch to, he will take the mile. No way you can let him play in the playoffs. The lesson would be lost. Make him and the team really pay w/ their season, and the likelihood of something like it happening again goes down dramatically.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> David Stern has been very clear in the past that continued transgressions get you harsher penalties. And you know what? His stance has worked. Kmart, Sheed, etc.


When did KMart and Sheed miss 70+ games, it's not like Artest lead the league year after year in technical fouls or flagrant fouls, yet Kmart gets a slap on the wrist, and when Rasheed was smoking weed where was "harsh penalty"?


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> When did KMart and Sheed miss 70+ games, it's not like Artest lead the league year after year in technical fouls or flagrant fouls, yet Kmart gets a slap on the wrist, and when Rasheed was smoking weed where was "harsh penalty"?


When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot? Where's your sense of scale? Flagrants a smoking weed don't compare even remotely to what Artest did. Artest's actions threatened the league as a whole. If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem. If you are going to argue a point, come up w/ something that makes sense. Don't just throw out anything you can think of to distract from the original point.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem.


A cup of beer isn't thrown at every game, which means that once in 59 years a fan has been attacked....,. im sure fans are freaking out about going to games.


----------



## NYKBaller

SeaNet said:


> When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot? Where's your sense of scale? Flagrants a smoking weed don't compare even remotely to what Artest did. Artest's actions threatened the league as a whole. If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem. If you are going to argue a point, come up w/ something that makes sense. Don't just throw out anything you can think of to distract from the original point.


If the fans are afraid of a player attacking them when they throw objects at them then god help us. If I was on the street working as lets say street advertiser and someone threw a drink at me, I would fight them too.


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> A cup of beer isn't thrown at every game, which means that once in 59 years a fan has been attacked....,. im sure fans are freaking out about going to games.


I see you didn't take my advice above. I will attempt to piece together a cogent meaning from your post, nevertheless. The issue is not the fans throwing a beer. The issue is Artest's response and the riot it precipitated.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> I see you didn't take my advice above. I will attempt to piece together a cogent meaning from your post, nevertheless. The issue is not the fans throwing a beer. The issue is Artest's response and the riot it precipitated.


You said fans would be scared to go to games becasue they would think they would get attacked, I responded by saying, only one fan has been attacked in 59 years therefore i don't think any fan would be scared to go to a game.


----------



## SeaNet

NYKBaller said:


> If the fans are afraid of a player attacking them when they throw objects at them then god help us. If I was on the street working as lets say street advertiser and someone threw a drink at me, I would fight them too.


So two wrongs make a right? The riot threatened many people other than the beer thrower, btw/. As for walking down the street and getting a beer thrown at you, the situations are not comparable. Artest had the power of 'the man' behind him. Part of his $7 mil salary is to keep it in his pants as a representative of the NBA and let security handle it. His response was to precipitate a riot. How is that acceptable?


----------



## socco

SeaNet said:


> I see you didn't take my advice above. I will attempt to piece together a cogent meaning from your post, nevertheless. The issue is not the fans throwing a beer. The issue is Artest's response and the riot it precipitated.


So what if a fan kidnapped Artest's mom and got Ron's attention then started to rape her, should Ron not react at all then? Fact is that the fan who threw the cup started the riot, like it or not. Should Artest have kept himself under control (like he had up to that point), yeah of course. But that doesn't make it ok to suspend him the entire season.


----------



## Kneejoh

How many people do you know that are actually afraid of going to an NBA game?


----------



## PacersguyUSA

SeaNet said:


> When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot? Where's your sense of scale? Flagrants a smoking weed don't compare even remotely to what Artest did. Artest's actions threatened the league as a whole. If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem. If you are going to argue a point, come up w/ something that makes sense. Don't just throw out anything you can think of to distract from the original point.


If a fan runs out onto a field of play, in the middle of a huge altercation, the fan should be aware of the possible consequences. Artest didn't really attack anyone in the stands. He contrained a man and asked him if he thew a beer, then he was attacked. Then Jackson attacked a fan in the stands. Then Artest went back to the court. Then a fan approached Artest and Artest hit the man. After that, another fan tackled Artest, and Jermaine O'neal proceded to punch the man that had tackled Artest and was about to attack Artest again.


----------



## SeaNet

q said:


> So what if a fan kidnapped Artest's mom and got Ron's attention then started to rape her, should Ron not react at all then? Fact is that the fan who threw the cup started the riot, like it or not.



Yeah, um, that didn't happen. And you know what? If Ron Artest went and killed the person who did that instead of letting the police handle it, he would be prosecuted for Manslaughter at a minimum. Whether you think its right or not, that's the way the world works.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> So two wrongs make a right? The riot threatened many people other than the beer thrower, btw/. As for walking down the street and getting a beer thrown at you, the situations are not comparable. Artest had the power of 'the man' behind him. Part of his $7 mil salary is to keep it in his pants as a representative of the NBA and let security handle it. His response was to precipitate a riot. How is that acceptable?


Actually you don't have a clue what his contract says, he is a human first, and a basketball player second. So he reacted in the way that most humans would react.


----------



## PacersguyUSA

SeaNet said:


> Yeah, um, that didn't happen. And you know what? If Ron Artest went and killed the person who did that instead of letting the police handle it, he would be prosecuted for Manslaughter at a minimum. Whether you think its right or not, that's the way the world works.


I'm fairly certain a plea of insanity would get him acquitted if he killed a man that he first handly witnessed raping his mom, or he argue he was defending his mother.


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> I see you didn't take my advice above. I will attempt to piece together a cogent meaning from your post, nevertheless. The issue is not the fans throwing a beer. The issue is Artest's response and the riot it precipitated.


I guess if I came to work and threw a beer in your face, you would just sit there right?

*edited: Inappropriate*


----------



## DuMa

SeaNet said:


> When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot? Where's your sense of scale? Flagrants a smoking weed don't compare even remotely to what Artest did. Artest's actions threatened the league as a whole. If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem. If you are going to argue a point, come up w/ something that makes sense. Don't just throw out anything you can think of to distract from the original point.


well said


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> Actually you don't have a clue what his contract says, he is a human first, and a basketball player second. So he reacted in the way that most humans would react.


I think the misunderstanding of the contract is yours not mine. In fact, I know it. The NBA specifically addressed the issue of going into the stands during any kind of altercation w/ the players. They all knew that it was forbidden, and that they would be subject to suspensions of great length should they do such a thing.

As far as whether he reacted like most humans would react, that is an entirely separate issue. And I agree, he did react like people would want to react. But he had a responsibility to the NBA and the Pacers to keep it in his pants. He couldn't do that and he paid the price. In that position, Artest has the power of 'the man' behind him. You let security and the cops take care of it. None of that would have happened if Artest had pointed the dude out and let security take care of it.


----------



## socco

SeaNet said:


> Yeah, um, that didn't happen. And you know what? If Ron Artest went and killed the person who did that instead of letting the police handle it, he would be prosecuted for Manslaughter at a minimum. Whether you think its right or not, that's the way the world works.


Ron Artest was attacked, he reacted. You make it sound like nothing happened to him and he just snapped for no reason. That's not the case AT ALL.


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> I guess if I came to work and threw a beer in your face, you would just sit there right?
> 
> *edited:*


This must be the dumbest reponse I could possibly think of to my argument. Why don't you read a few more of my responses and see if that's how I feel about things?


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> I think the misunderstanding of the contract is yours not mine. In fact, I know it. The NBA specifically addressed the issue of going into the stands during any kind of altercation w/ the players. They all knew that it was forbidden, and that they would be subject to suspensions of great length should they do such a thing.
> 
> As far as whether he reacted like most humans would react, that is an entirely separate issue. And I agree, he did react like people would want to react. But he had a responsibility to the NBA and the Pacers to keep it in his pants. He couldn't do that and he paid the price. In that position, Artest has the power of 'the man' behind him. You let security and the cops take care of it. None of that would have happened if Artest had pointed the dude out and let security take care of it.


If Ron Artest didn't retaliate that would just show every fan who is a drunk idiot that they can throw beer at players and get away with it. Since Ron Artest retaliated you won't see another fan do anything stupid like that for another 20-30 years.


----------



## R-Star

DuMa said:


> well said


The problem is, its not well said at all. What about the fan who threw the cup, or the one who threw they chair, or any of the other Detroit wahoos involved in the whole matter? Did they get suspended from their job for a year? How is what they did any better? If Ron didnt throw a camera around last year, would he have even been labled as the biggest problem on the court that day? Its painfully obvious that Steven Jackson was main problem in the stands. 

And of course we wouldnt want to slap the defensive stopper on the defending world champs team too hard now would we? 8 games for what he did and a season for Artest? That **** is a joke.

I find it funny how anyone who posts against Artest in this thread can act like justice is being served, when they know Artest was the scapegoat, and everyone else got off with a slap on the wrist, especialy ben wallace.


----------



## BG7

SeaNet said:


> Yeah, um, that didn't happen. And you know what? If Ron Artest went and killed the person who did that instead of letting the police handle it, he would be prosecuted for Manslaughter at a minimum. Whether you think its right or not, that's the way the world works.


Why would he get charged with manslaughter for stopping someone that is raping his mother?


----------



## Nephets

I've never stood behind Artest, Wallace, or the fans.

I don't consider a cup of beer being thrown at you an "attack". Haven't you seen players get popcorn/drinks thrown at them before? How did they react? They walked away.

Fighting isn't necessary for this ordeal, or fighting as never really made anything better, because in the end, someone is hurt, and that's not really something you should say "is okay". He just threw a beer, he was stupid, but so was Artest for GOING into the stands for that!

Please stop covering for Artest, he has mental problems with outbursts, and what he has done and you saying the whole riot (that wouldn't have happened if Artest didn't go into the stands) wasn't something that deserved a year suspension? I think a year suspension for one of the biggest riots in American sports history is a bigger deal than "oh, he should only get a week of suspensions".

Wallace deserved more, I agree, but Stern hasn't been known for the best decisions of all time, but I back him up with this one. It put a horrible tainted image on the NBA.


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> This must be the dumbest reponse I could possibly think of to my argument. Why don't you read a few more of my responses and see if that's how I feel about things?


Why would I want to read through more garbage and rhetoric?


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> If Ron Artest didn't retaliate that would just show every fan who is a drunk idiot that they can throw beer at players and get away with it. Since Ron Artest retaliated you won't see another fan do anything stupid like that for another 20-30 years.


That's one way to look at it. Its also a way that would never cross the mind of any league executive in any sport. That's just not how the world works, and Artest knew that. There are actions and there are consequences. It is Artest's responsibility to know what the consequences are for his actions. He had all the information (the NBA went over this type of situation specifically w/ the players), and he made the wrong choice.


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> Why would I want to read through more garbage and rhetoric?


Clearly you'd rather make attacks based on incomplete information. I suppose that's your right. Enjoy.


----------



## SeaNet

sloth said:


> Why would he get charged with manslaughter for stopping someone that is raping his mother?


The situation posed, as I understood it, was Artest killing the person in retribution.


----------



## BG7

SeaNet said:


> When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot? Where's your sense of scale? Flagrants a smoking weed don't compare even remotely to what Artest did. Artest's actions threatened the league as a whole. If the fans are afraid of coming to the game because they think (reasonably or not) a player might attack them, you've got a big problem. If you are going to argue a point, come up w/ something that makes sense. Don't just throw out anything you can think of to distract from the original point.


Actually I believe that Rasheed Wallace did go into the stands during the Pistons-Pacers brawl, he happened to charge in there too. 

and didn't Sheed go in the stands while in Portland. He didn't fight the fan, but he just yelled at the fan and then got a fine.


----------



## BG7

In 1995 when Vernon Maxwell pummeled a fan he only got a 10 game suspension.


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> The problem is, its not well said at all. What about the fan who threw the cup, or the one who threw they chair, or any of the other Detroit wahoos involved in the whole matter? Did they get suspended from their job for a year? How is what they did any better? If Ron didnt throw a camera around last year, would he have even been labled as the biggest problem on the court that day? Its painfully obvious that Steven Jackson was main problem in the stands.
> 
> And of course we wouldnt want to slap the defensive stopper on the defending world champs team too hard now would we? 8 games for what he did and a season for Artest? That **** is a joke.
> 
> I find it funny how anyone who posts against Artest in this thread can act like justice is being served, when they know Artest was the scapegoat, and everyone else got off with a slap on the wrist, especialy ben wallace.


First of all, this thread is about Artest, not the people in the stands. That is an entirely separate issue, IMO. And they deserve punishments themselves. However, if those people were at their jobs when they threw beer and chairs, you can damn well be sure that they would have been fired, and not just suspended for a season.


----------



## O2K

i didnt bother reading your guys' response so i dont know if im repeating anything, but if i was at work, someone threw beer at me, i would fight him, but with that said i would also loose my job... artest gets suspended for a season. I think if that happened to us at any of our jobs im pretty sure most of us would get fired.... your not allowed to fight with customers, regardless what happens...


----------



## Nephets

O2K said:


> i didnt bother reading your guys' response so i dont know if im repeating anything, but if i was at work, someone threw beer at me, i would fight him, but with that said i would also loose my job... artest gets suspended for a season. I think if that happened to us at any of our jobs im pretty sure most of us would get fired.... your not allowed to fight with customers, regardless what happens...


I've had people mock me, and even pick fights with me. I do not fight with them, not because I'm "a *****", but because I contain myself because I know that's the *right* thing to do.


----------



## SeaNet

Regarding the particular length of Artest's suspensions vs. those of people in the past for similar incidents, I have two comments: 1) the other incidents didn't develop into full scale riots (fair or not that influences penalties) and 2) David Stern has always been very consistent w/ his application of stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. Artest is the repeatingest of offenders in the NBA right now. No shocker that he got one hell of a stiff penalty.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> When did Kmart and Sheed charge into the stands to attack an innocent spectator (who probably paid $200 for his seat) and precipitate a riot?


So because the fan paid 200$ for his seat, he has the right to throw beer at an NBA player......oooh I see how this works, if I gave you boss 50 bucks I could throw food at you.


----------



## reHEATed

I dont think it would have been fair if he was allowed in the playoffs. The top 2 seeds worked hard to get those top seeds and face lower compeition in the first round. That Indy team with a healthy Artest who has practiced with the team (not an injury situation) would just not be fair. If he was to be reinstated fairly, it would have been after the all star break to allow Indy to get the 4th seed or so, being fair to the top teams.


----------



## socco

Nephets said:


> I've never stood behind Artest, Wallace, or the fans.
> 
> I don't consider a cup of beer being thrown at you an "attack". Haven't you seen players get popcorn/drinks thrown at them before? How did they react? They walked away.


How many of them were just punched in the face a minute earlier though?


----------



## O2K

Nephets said:


> I've had people mock me, and even pick fights with me. I do not fight with them, not because I'm "a *****", but because I contain myself because I know that's the *right* thing to do.



most people dont think about doing the "right" thing, some people let their emotions get the better of them, and some people try to do the "cool" thing....


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> So because the fan paid 200$ for his seat, he has the right to throw beer at an NBA player......oooh I see how this works, if I gave you boss 50 bucks I could throw food at you.


Not a bright one, huh? The $200 comment was one aimed at the economic side of the situation. The NBA stood to lose a lot of money if people didn't want those seats. Another factor that caused Stern to come down hard.


----------



## Nephets

But seriously, some people have severe issues whenever you get a cup of beer thrown at you that you would risk your ENTIRE JOB just to react on impulse without thinking of the wrong-doing. We, as humans, are raised to be mature and not fighters. Just because someone messes you with doesn't mean you have to go into the situation with your fists out. Contain yourself. I've never gotten into a fight in my life. People find it hard to "fight" whenever you walk away or just stand there, show them who the real man is by not risking what you have, for something that lasts 5 minutes.


----------



## SeaNet

O2K said:


> most people dont think about doing the "right" thing, some people let their emotions get the better of them, and some people try to do the "cool" thing....


And when they do the "cool" thing, they have to pay the penalty for it. Like Artest.


----------



## DuMa

R-Star said:


> The problem is, its not well said at all. What about the fan who threw the cup, or the one who threw they chair, or any of the other Detroit wahoos involved in the whole matter? Did they get suspended from their job for a year? How is what they did any better? If Ron didnt throw a camera around last year, would he have even been labled as the biggest problem on the court that day? Its painfully obvious that Steven Jackson was main problem in the stands.
> 
> And of course we wouldnt want to slap the defensive stopper on the defending world champs team too hard now would we? 8 games for what he did and a season for Artest? That **** is a joke.
> 
> I find it funny how anyone who posts against Artest in this thread can act like justice is being served, when they know Artest was the scapegoat, and everyone else got off with a slap on the wrist, especialy ben wallace.


I think the fans in questions that were in the incident was banned from attending sports events for like a year. 

Maybe you dont realize the serious differences in fighting a player on court versus fighting fans off court. There is a huge difference, my friend. If you cant see that, then I cant help you. Plus Stern needed to make an example out of him because you cant allow that to happen again. You could say Artest was a scapegoat but he was rightfully scapgoated deservedly so because he has been consistent in his anger and violent incidents. Stern couldnt keep punishing him in the same manner because he would never learn.


----------



## Kneejoh

SeaNet said:


> Not a bright one, huh? The $200 comment was one aimed at the economic side of the situation. The NBA stood to lose a lot of money if people didn't want those seats. Another factor that caused Stern to come down hard.


Don't give me this ****ing bull****, you said that a fan paid 200 bucks for his seat and i replied to that, and now you're changin the subject.


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> Don't give me this ****ing bull****, you said that a fan paid 200 bucks for his seat and i replied to that, and now you're changin the subject.


You inferred something from an aside in my post. It was admittedly vague, but my clarification was in fact the my original intent of the aside. Perhaps you don't believe this? Nothing I can do about that.


----------



## R-Star

*edited: Inappropriate*


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> *edited*


*edited* You can't come up w/ anything to counter my arguments so this is what you respond w/. 
*edited* I got chippy w/ thugimmortal, sure, after, IMO, he got chippy w/ me. You? You're just on an ignorance crusade. Enjoy it.


----------



## socco

R-Star said:


> *edited*


BINGO


----------



## R-Star

DuMa said:


> I think the fans in questions that were in the incident was banned from attending sports events for like a year.
> 
> Maybe you dont realize the serious differences in fighting a player on court versus fighting fans off court. There is a huge difference, my friend. If you cant see that, then I cant help you. Plus Stern needed to make an example out of him because you cant allow that to happen again. You could say Artest was a scapegoat but he was rightfully scapgoated deservedly so because he has been consistent in his anger and violent incidents. Stern couldnt keep punishing him in the same manner because he would never learn.


Bull****. Pure BS. Artest threw a camera, he paid for it. Artest had some flagrants, many of which just because he is Ron Artest. Many agreed that alot of the flagrants he recieved in the past year or so were pure BS, and he only got them because hes known as a "bad boy". 

Tell me what else hes done? None of what I mentioned is any worse than what K Mart did, and that and including the riot, what hes done is still head and shoulders under chocking your coach like Spreewell did.


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> Bull****. Pure BS. Artest threw a camera, he paid for it. Artest had some flagrants, many of which just because he is Ron Artest. Many agreed that alot of the flagrants he recieved in the past year or so were pure BS, and he only got them because hes known as a "bad boy".
> 
> Tell me what else hes done? None of what I mentioned is any worse than what K Mart did, and that and including the riot, what hes done is still head and shoulders under chocking your coach like Spreewell did.


Not a big fan of reality, huh? You're the one incapable of debating. Pathetic, really.


----------



## Kneejoh

One question for everybody saying its good taht Stern didn't let Ron come back: If Lebron was in Artest's place, how many of you can honestly say taht Ben Wallace would have still only gotten 6 games and that Lebron would have gotten 70+?


----------



## SeaNet

thug_immortal8 said:


> One question for everybody saying its good taht Stern didn't let Ron come back: If Lebron was in Artest's place, how many of you can honestly say taht Ben Wallace would have still only gotten 6 games and that Lebron would have gotten 70+?


Lebron wouldn't have gotten 70+ games, because Lebron doesn't have Artest's history. Whether its right or wrong is a separate issue, just saying that's how punishments in David Stern's NBA work. Personally, I think Stern's got a solid system.


----------



## BG7

Artest did the right thing in not pursueing a fight with Ben Wallace. The 2nd attack on him was just too much for him to handle. Ben Wallace started the riot, no matter if it was his fault or not that things escalated into that, he should have to suffer the penalty. How stupid does that sound, no apply it to Artest.


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> *edited* You can't come up w/ anything to counter my arguments so this is what you respond w/. *edited* I got chippy w/ thugimmortal, sure, after, IMO, he got chippy w/ me. You? You're just on an ignorance crusade. Enjoy it.


You dont give any of the posters a reasonable response to their opinions. What is the point of them debating with you when you refuse to give any room for their takes on the whole thing? You obviously are strong in your stance about Artest being out for the playoffs, fine by me, but if your going to debate it, debate it. Dont side step questions on your own posts like you did with the $200 per seat BS. Whats the point of even debating then?

I may be a jerk, hey most of the people on this board know I can be from time to time, but you yourself should learn how to debate on a message board. Right now you look like a spoiled little kid saying, "My dad can beat up your dad."


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> Not a big fan of reality, huh? You're the one incapable of debating. Pathetic, really.


Wheres your side on this? Im incapable of debating? I think alot of people on here would disagree with you on that.


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> Wheres your side on this? Im incapable of debating? I think alot of people on here would disagree with you on that.



I was attempting to clarify my points for people that kept responding to me. They didn't have to respond, and you didn't have to read them. Somehow you think attacking people is the way to debate. Yeah, I'm opinionated. You don't like my opinions? Put me on your ignore list. Otherwise stop bothering me about what you think about how I post, because I couldn't care less about your opinion on the matter.


----------



## BG7

SeaNet said:


> I was attempting to clarify my points for people that kept responding to me. They didn't have to respond, and you didn't have to read them. Somehow you think attacking people is the way to debate. Yeah, I'm opinionated. You don't like my opinions? Put me on your ignore list. Otherwise stop bothering me about what you think about how I post, because I couldn't care less about your opinion on the matter.


you clowning. The bottom line is that my dad can beat up your dad. What you have to say to that? huh! (hits chest)


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> I was attempting to clarify my points for people that kept responding to me. They didn't have to respond, and you didn't have to read them. Somehow you think attacking people is the way to debate. Yeah, I'm opinionated. You don't like my opinions? Put me on your ignore list. Otherwise stop bothering me about what you think about how I post, because I couldn't care less about your opinion on the matter.


Couldnt that great "advice" work for you as well? Sounds pretty hypocritical to tell me to do that if you ask me. But hey, you could care less about what I think, so I guess we've got nothing to worry about.


----------



## SeaNet

sloth said:


> you clowning. The bottom line is that my dad can beat up your dad. What you have to say to that? huh! (hits chest)


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You know, I bet your dad could whup my dad, I better call him and tell him to get the hell out of there!!!


----------



## SeaNet

R-Star said:


> Couldnt that great "advice" work for you as well? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me to tell me to do that if you ask me. But hey, you could care less about what I think, so I guess we've got nothing to worry about.


Who attacked who first here? Did I offer advice to you on how to post before you attacked me? No, you started this. Not me.


----------



## R-Star

SeaNet said:


> Who attacked who first here? Did I offer advice to you on how to post before you attacked me? No, you started this. Not me.


*edited: No baiting*


----------



## Minstrel

Please stop with the insults, on both sides. This has proven many times to be an issue that inflames passions for both sides of the debate, so either just respond to the points related to Artest with *nothing* said about the other poster or, if you can't do that, forbear from responding until you can.


----------



## BG7

SeaNet said:


> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> You know, I bet your dad could whup my dad, I better call him and tell him to get the hell out of there!!!


my 2 year old cousin could also whup that rat in your avatar.


----------



## SeaNet

sloth said:


> my 2 year old cousin could also whup that rat in your avatar.


Then we got to get your 2 year old cousin to my house. Because my landlord refuses to deal w/ the rat issue. And until he does, the avatar stays, lol.


----------



## Shabadoo

There is one thing about the Artest situation that I don't think has been touched upon in any great depth. That is the question of his mental state having bearing on his actions being "his fault".

I find it interesting that I have a great deal of sympathy for Artest because I feel that he has a mental condition. While his actions were obviously wrong, it is quite clear that he just "snapped". While it is arguable that "snapping" happens to sane people, I think we have seen Artest do drastic things on impulse far too many times to just assume he is of a normal state of mind. His actions do not seem to be pre-meditated. Clearly, all is not well.

So, if he has a mental condition that can be clinically diagnosed is it really his "fault"? I think the same divisions can be seen in a lot of high profile cases. I think he's an idiot, but I don't particularly hate Mike Tyson, who I think is in the same boat as Artest. We could stretch this further to include Michael Jackson: sick pervert, or mentally ill? I myself tend to more ardently condemn those who actually are conscious of what they are doing.

This all boils down to one question: if you are mentally ill, and you do something stupid, is it really your "fault"?


----------



## Ron Mexico

I Told You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## socco

SeaNet said:


> Who attacked who first here? Did I offer advice to you on how to post before you attacked me? No, you started this. Not me.


lmao. Who attacked who first? Funny you would make a statement like that about something in a thread in which you completely ignore the fact that Ron Artest was attacked first, twice actually, before he did something. Of all people to make that statement it is freaking hilarious that it was you. And in this thread too, wow.


----------



## mavsman

Shabadoo said:


> There is one thing about the Artest situation that I don't think has been touched upon in any great depth. That is the question of his mental state having bearing on his actions being "his fault".
> 
> I find it interesting that I have a great deal of sympathy for Artest because I feel that he has a mental condition. While his actions were obviously wrong, it is quite clear that he just "snapped". While it is arguable that "snapping" happens to sane people, I think we have seen Artest do drastic things on impulse far too many times to just assume he is of a normal state of mind. His actions do not seem to be pre-meditated. Clearly, all is not well.
> 
> So, if he has a mental condition that can be clinically diagnosed is it really his "fault"? I think the same divisions can be seen in a lot of high profile cases. I think he's an idiot, but I don't particularly hate Mike Tyson, who I think is in the same boat as Artest. We could stretch this further to include Michael Jackson: sick pervert, or mentally ill? I myself tend to more ardently condemn those who actually are conscious of what they are doing.
> 
> This all boils down to one question: if you are mentally ill, and you do something stupid, is it really your "fault"?


So according to you he is not guilty by reason of insanity? What a joke. The only way that applies is if he is so insane that he does not know what he is doing. That clearly does not apply to Ron Artest. He has the mental abiltiy to tell the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

I think it's the right decision at this point. The penalty was far too severe to begin with, and Stern destroyed the Pacers season with his decision, but if allowed Artest back for the playoffs, that would be penalizing another team that worked hard to get home court advantage and a top 4 seed. It wouldn't be fair that a top 4 seed has to face a team that was worse than them in the regular season (because of Stern), then all of the sudden they get their best player back and become the favorite to win the series. 

I hope Ronny comes back strong next year, and I hope the Pacers do well (within reason, they're in the same division as my bullies )


----------



## KokoTheMonkey

I file this under the "It's about time" department. Everybody had to know this was going to be the case, it was just a matter of time. Stern wasn't going "cave in" and let the guy back for the playoffs, the most important part of the season.


----------



## SeaNet

q said:


> lmao. Who attacked who first? Funny you would make a statement like that about something in a thread in which you completely ignore the fact that Ron Artest was attacked first, twice actually, before he did something. Of all people to make that statement it is freaking hilarious that it was you. And in this thread too, wow.


I've never said he wasn't provoked. He certainly was. But he still shouldn't have fought back. And I've explained why I feel that way.


----------



## PacersguyUSA

I see no response to my posts. 

*chocks up another one in the victorious debate column*


----------



## socco

SeaNet said:


> I've never said he wasn't provoked. He certainly was. But he still shouldn't have fought back. And I've explained why I feel that way.


Of course he shouldn't have gone in the stands. But an entire season suspension is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## SeaNet

q said:


> Of course he shouldn't have gone in the stands. But an entire season suspension is absolutely ridiculous.


That's where we disagree, which is cool by me. In another player's case, I would agree w/ you. But w/ Artest's history, I think it was the appropriate response.


----------



## sherwin

Artest is going to come back in 05-06 as a beast. He will light up every stat, and he'll make the Pistons fans regret it.


----------



## PauloCatarino

SeaNet said:


> That's where we disagree, which is cool by me. In another player's case, I would agree w/ you. But w/ Artest's history, I think it was the appropriate response.


I've read your posts on the thread, and they made me want to ask you a question: how long a suspention do you think it's worth a player charging a referee in a parking lot?

Of note:
- It's a public place, and people (the public) saw that;
- It was a long time after the game was played.

Just curious.


----------



## SeaNet

PauloCatarino said:


> I've read your posts on the thread, and they made me want to ask you a question: how long a suspention do you think it's worth a player charging a referee in a parking lot?
> 
> Of note:
> - It's a public place, and people (the public) saw that;
> - It was a long time after the game was played.
> 
> Just curious.


Depends on what happened after/during the charge and the history of the player. Off the top of my head, 3-10 games? I don't think the publicity of it compares to something on TV in an arena, and it also doesn't endanger the public. But the fact that it was long after the game increases the penalty from just a normal in the heat of the moment confrontation w/ an official. If memory serves me correct, the reason Spree's suspension (team imposed, as I remember it as well), was as long as it was, was not just due to the choking itself, but that he came out of the lockerroom 20 minutes later looking for more.


----------



## PauloCatarino

SeaNet said:


> Depends on what happened after/during the charge *and the history of the player*. Off the top of my head, 3-10 games? I don't think the publicity of it compares to something on TV in an arena, and it also doesn't endanger the public. But the fact that it was long after the game increases the penalty from just a normal in the heat of the moment confrontation w/ an official. If memory serves me correct, the reason Spree's suspension (team imposed, as I remember it as well), was as long as it was, was not just due to the choking itself, but that he came out of the lockerroom 20 minutes later looking for more.


Just for arguments sake, let's say the player has a wide history or verbally abusing NBA oficials... and holds the all-time record of technical fouls...
3-10 games?

EDIT: Oh, and that he had to be restrained to prevent him for actually jumping on the ref...


----------



## SeaNet

PauloCatarino said:


> Just for arguments sake, let's say the player has a wide history or verbally abusing NBA oficials... and holds the all-time record of technical fouls...
> 3-10 games?


10 games, or thereabouts, IMO. What did Sheed get? Like 7 or 8?


----------



## PauloCatarino

SeaNet said:


> 10 games, or thereabouts, IMO. What did Sheed get? Like 7 or 8?


So, is Stern coherent or not?


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> Just for arguments sake, let's say the player has a wide history or verbally abusing NBA oficials... and holds the all-time record of technical fouls...
> 3-10 games?
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and that he had to be restrained to prevent him for actually jumping on the ref...


I notice you also left out the fact that the referee verbally abused Wallace, leading to Wallace charging him. This was substantiated by Brevin Knight, who was with Wallace at the time.

So it wasn't a premediated attack, outside the "heat of the moment."


----------



## SeaNet

PauloCatarino said:


> So, is Stern coherent or not?


IMO, yes. I see the logic behind his system of crimes and punishments. A few years ago, I didn't like the escalating penalties for players w/ a history. Then I saw how effective it was. Alot of guys have stepped back from the ledge, IMO, due to the harsher calls and penalties for guys w/ histories. As a Net fan, I watched it work wonders w/ Kmart. When the flagrants became an issue, the refs started calling every questionable call a flagrant on him, and he met w/ the League officials repeatedly, until he toned it down.


----------



## Shabadoo

mavsman said:


> So according to you he is not guilty by reason of insanity? What a joke. The only way that applies is if he is so insane that he does not know what he is doing. That clearly does not apply to Ron Artest. He has the mental ability to tell the difference between right and wrong.


Well I didn't say that he was totally innocent. I agree that he should have had a lengthy suspension (although I think Stern's punishment is too harsh).

It is a bit too simplistic to just say "he knows what is right and what is wrong" and therefore he is conscious of his actions, and is totally responsible. The thing is, he just doesn't realise what is right and wrong at the time. Artest's many misadventures occur without rational thought- they are impulsive. You can see this in the way that he was perfectly calm laying down on the scorer's bench, and the frenzied terror in his eyes as he gets hit with the beer. There's clearly something wrong upstairs.

However, he soon realised what he had done, albeit in retrospect. There's that famous picture of him with his shirt stretched. His stoic gaze conveys the story. It had just popped in to his head exactly what he had just done.

So, no, he shouldn't get let off because of insanity. But, maybe, Stern should have taken this into consideration when making his punishment.

I don't know, maybe I'm the only one that feels this way.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> I notice you also left out the fact that the referee verbally abused Wallace, leading to Wallace charging him. This was substantiated by Brevin Knight, who was with Wallace at the time.
> 
> So it wasn't a premediated attack, outside the "heat of the moment."


If i did, it wasn't on purpose. It was a while back, do i don't clearly remember. Is there a link available?

BUT, tell me something: when did the ref verbally abused Sheed? On court or after the game?
If it was after the game, why was Sheed waiting for him (if he really was)?
And who verbally abused who first?


----------



## PauloCatarino

SeaNet said:


> IMO, yes. I see the logic behind his system of crimes and punishments. A few years ago, I didn't like the escalating penalties for players w/ a history. Then I saw how effective it was. Alot of guys have stepped back from the ledge, IMO, due to the harsher calls and penalties for guys w/ histories. As a Net fan, I watched it work wonders w/ Kmart. When the flagrants became an issue, the refs started calling every questionable call a flagrant on him, and he met w/ the League officials repeatedly, until he toned it down.


Sorry, Seanet, i like your posting and all, but in this stance you've lost some credibility.

FACT:
1- Ron gets stuff thrown at him;
2- Ron goes into the stands and confronts an innocent person
3- the rest could be caused by Ron's #2 action, but i call BS.

And you say a season long suspention is OK.

And 3-10 games suspension for a guy who tries to attack a referee in a parking lot well after a game?


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> If i did, it wasn't on purpose. It was a while back, do i don't clearly remember. Is there a link available?


I don't know where to find it now. It was reported, with link, several times on the Portland board when it occurred.



> BUT, tell me something: when did the ref verbally abused Sheed? On court or after the game?
> If it was after the game, why was Sheed waiting for him (if he really was)?
> And who verbally abused who first?


Nobody was waiting for anyone. Sheed was leaving the stadium with Knight and happened to come across the referee in question. Wallace said something about the referee missing a call and the referee responded with a stream of verbal abuse, which I recall Knight saying was some bad stuff. Then Wallace charged the ref. Knight grabbed Wallace. Things calmed down and no physical altercation came of it.

Wallace was clearly at fault for charging the referee, but it wasn't unprovoked or a planned action. And the referee did his own blameworthy things.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> I don't know where to find it now. It was reported, with link, several times on the Portland board when it occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was waiting for anyone. Sheed was leaving the stadium with Knight and happened to come across the referee in question. Wallace said something about the referee missing a call and the referee responded with a stream of verbal abuse, which I recall Knight saying was some bad stuff. Then Wallace charged the ref. Knight grabbed Wallace. Things calmed down and no physical altercation came of it.
> 
> Wallace was clearly at fault for charging the referee, but it wasn't unprovoked or a planned action. And the referee did his own blameworthy things.


Sorry, Minstrel, i'm not one to doubt you, but i found myself smiling at the notion of an NBA referee (who was alone) lashing out insults to an 6-11, 230 basketball player known by easily losing his temper... :clap:


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> Sorry, Minstrel, i'm not one to doubt you, but i found myself smiling at the notion of an NBA referee (who was alone) lashing out insults to an 6-11, 230 basketball player known by easily losing his temper... :clap:


Yeah, nearly as crazy as a dumpy fan going on the court to confront a powerfully-built _currently enraged_ Ron Artest.

People feel entitled, people feel protected by society. Many people say things to people they'd never dare to insult if there were no society with laws against physical attacks.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, nearly as crazy as a dumpy fan going on the court to confront a powerfully-built _currently enraged_ Ron Artest.


So you still think think what you posted is true, right? :biggrin: 

Well, nice comparison you brought there :angel:, but i don't buy it.

"Sheed: Hey, man, you made the wrong call and you know it, man, you costed us the game!"

"Ref thinking: well, here i am alone in this parking lot and a huge guy is questioning my refereeing... and he isn't alone, either.
Now, what shall i do?
Ignore him and get into my car? 
No. No way. I won't take this crap.
i don't care what happens to me.
Yo, Sheed! You are a *** *** * * ** **** * **** *** *** *** ****!"

Yeah, really plausible.


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> So you still think think what you posted is true, right? :biggrin:


Oh, I see. No longer fits your "Wallace was a raving maniac" desired image so it's bull****.

Cool.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> Oh, I see. No longer fits your "Wallace was a raving maniac" desired image so it's bull****.
> 
> Cool.


It´s not a question of "fitting" anything. I just think that your view of the happening is wrong. That´s all.


----------



## R-Star

Minstrel said:


> Oh, I see. No longer fits your "Wallace was a raving maniac" desired image so it's bull****.
> 
> Cool.


No no Minstrel, your probably right. Sheed probably even tried to calm the guy down for abit, before the poor guy just couldnt take any more abuse. That seems more likley. And I for one know that if Rasheed says the ref was verbaly abusing him, Ill take his word on it, hes done nothing in the past to make me question that.


----------



## SeaNet

PauloCatarino said:


> Sorry, Seanet, i like your posting and all, but in this stance you've lost some credibility.
> 
> FACT:
> 1- Ron gets stuff thrown at him;
> 2- Ron goes into the stands and confronts an innocent person
> 3- the rest could be caused by Ron's #2 action, but i call BS.
> 
> And you say a season long suspention is OK.
> 
> And 3-10 games suspension for a guy who tries to attack a referee in a parking lot well after a game?


People disagree all the time. No problem. I don't see the confrontation w/ the ref being as severe as you do, and you don't see Artest's part in precipitating a riot as being as large or blameworthy as I do. As for issues of 'credibility,' I don't personally see how it applies here (did I lie or something?), but again, people disagree all the time.


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> It´s not a question of "fitting" anything. I just think that your view of the happening is wrong. That´s all.


The problem is, you have no basis to say the account is wrong except for the fact that you don't want to believe it.



R-Star said:


> No no Minstrel, your probably right. Sheed probably even tried to calm the guy down for abit, before the poor guy just couldnt take any more abuse. That seems more likley.


Weak sarcasm coming from a guy who's been moved to angry tears, over and over, trying to defend a guy who attacked fans on national TV.

And on top of that, I didn't whine about the punishment Wallace got, the way you did with Artest's. I simply noted that it wasn't unprovoked and premeditated.



> And I for one know that if Rasheed says the ref was verbaly abusing him, Ill take his word on it


Brevin Knight said it, actually. Noted lunatic Brevin Knight.


----------



## Minstrel

Here's something I was able to find on what Brevin Knight said:



> Stern defends severity of Wallace's penalty
> 
> 01/21/03
> 
> JIM BESEDA
> 
> MEMPHIS, Tenn. -- NBA commissioner David Stern insisted he has had no second thoughts about the length of Rasheed Wallace's suspension.
> 
> Stern, in Memphis on Monday for the Blazers' game against the Grizzlies, emphasized that the seven-game suspension without pay for Wallace's Wednesday night postgame incident with referee Tim Donaghy on the Rose Garden's loading dock was appropriate for an off-court encounter with a referee.
> 
> "From our perspective, the suspension is not severe," Stern said before the Blazers' 99-87 victory at The Pyramid.
> 
> But Grizzlies guard Brevin Knight, who was with Wallace on the loading dock after that game Wednesday night and said Wallace didn't come close to making physical contact with Donaghy, questioned the severity of the penalty and the reasoning behind it.
> 
> "It was heated, but to me it wasn't so heated where he posed a threat," Knight said. "I mean, when it was done and we started talking, I said, 'There is going to be a fine.' And I never want anybody to give money back. But for seven games? Seven games is a lot
> 
> "This has nothing to do with what was said. It has to do with who it was. It was Rasheed Wallace. That's the bottom line."


I can't find Beseda's original article (Beseda writes for the Portland Oregonian), but the entire article was posted here:

http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/printthread.php?Board=aroundtl&main=19129&type=post

But it gives some of Knight's comments, as an eye witness, and he says it was "heated" but it in no way became physically threatening. That's a bit of a departure from the way it was painted by PauloCatarino.

And I'm still not even arguing Wallace should or should not have received the penalty he did.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> The problem is, you have no basis to say the account is wrong except for the fact that you don't want to believe it.


Well, let´s see:



> The Pistons on Thursday acquired Rasheed Wallace just prior to the NBA’s trading deadline. While no one doubts the ability of Wallace, everyone knows of his temperamental attitude that for years affected the Portland Trail Blazers both on the court and off. He has set records for personal fouls, has gone after a fan in the stands during a bench-clearing brawl, and at one point last season was suspended by the league for going after a referee in the parking lot following a game. He also has been in trouble with the law, once charged with assaulting a former girlfriend and arrested in 2002 on a marijuana possession charge.


Source 



> After a game with the Grizzlies, Wallace confronted an official in the parking lot of the Rose Garden and threatened his life. Wallace was fined and also given a seven-game suspension


Source 



> After all, what kind of man gets suspended for confronting a referee an hour after the game and issuing a physical threat in the arena parking garage? Answer: 'Sheed. And what kind of man throws basketballs at his teammates' heads in practice, only to run away giggling when one hits its mark? Answer: 'Sheed. What kind of man can help turn one of the league's most loyal fan bases, into a seething cauldron of resentment at a franchise which once defined the city?


source 

There's much, much more. All i had to was was google Nba+Rasheed+Wallace+parking+lot.

So many that "don´t want to believe it"...


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> There's much, much more. All i had to was was google Nba+Rasheed+Wallace+parking+lot.
> 
> So many that "don´t want to believe it"...


Those are all articles commenting on the _same_ report, the initial one. Knight's comments came out later refuting that original report that claimed Wallace snapped and threatened the referee's life.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> Those are all articles commenting on the _same_ report, the initial one. Knight's comments came out later refuting that original report that claimed Wallace snapped and threatened the referee's life.


Allright, Minstrel, i'll play it your way... Exactly why was Sheed suspended for 7 games?


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> Allright, Minstrel, i'll play it your way... Exactly why was Sheed suspended for 7 games?


Please consider reading my posts and not making up my positions. I haven't once argued that Wallace deserved a different suspension or that Wallace did nothing wrong. I simply said it wasn't unprovoked and premeditated, as you implied, as though Wallace was waiting, after the game, to attack the referee.

The meeting with the referee was accidental and there was provocation from both sides. Wallace was suspended for charging towards the referee, which he obviously shouldn't have done.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> Please consider reading my posts and not making up my positions.


Your atitude is starting to rub me the wrong way, Minstrel.
How did i "make up your propositions" when i was plainly asking you why Sheed got suspended?



> I haven't once argued that Wallace deserved a different suspension or that Wallace did nothing wrong. I simply said it wasn't unprovoked and premeditated, as you implied, as though Wallace was waiting, after the game, to attack the referee.


That's right. You are trying to emply that the ref unlawfully provoked poor-old-Sheed to a shouting match. AGAIN, i call BS.



> The meeting with the referee was accidental and there was provocation from both sides.


If you listen to yourself and really think you are making sense, there's nothing for me to argue about...


----------



## Minstrel

PauloCatarino said:


> Your atitude is starting to rub me the wrong way, Minstrel.


Your attitude rubbed the wrong way several posts back when you started becoming absurdly sarcastic for no reason. Yet I have remained civil, because you aren't worth it to me to spoil the fun of posting here.



> How did i "make up your propositions" when i was plainly asking you why Sheed got suspended?


By implying my account left Rasheed blameless, requiring you to ask what he was suspended for.



> That's right. You are trying to emply that the ref unlawfully provoked poor-old-Sheed to a shouting match. AGAIN, i call BS.
> ...
> If you listen to yourself and really think you are making sense, there's nothing for me to argue about...


Hmm, I guess this is where I say what I should have said earlier to end this: I no longer care what you think and what you call BS. You've been nothing but mocking or implying that I'm a liar for absolutely no reason, so you really don't rate a serious response.

So, call BS to your heart's content.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Minstrel said:


> Your attitude rubbed the wrong way several posts back when you started becoming absurdly sarcastic for no reason. Yet I have remained civil, because *you aren't worth it *to me to spoil the fun of posting here.


Somehow, i knew you'd step this low, Minstrel.

I've been posting in this forum for almost 2 years now, and i had great pleasure doing so. 
I've had many confrontations with posters. I'm opinionated and sometimes i get out of hand. I have always appologized for doing so. It was always my bad. Posters seemed to forget and forgive.

When i first started posting i looked up to you. 
I admired your articulated, level-headed manners.

But it's all gone, i'm afraid.
I don't know why you have the need to put down fellow posters like that (or maybe just one poster), and sincerely i don't give a damn now.

For the first time in almost 2 years i'll use the ignore function. That way i won't be insulted no more by you, Minstrel. 

I'm done.


----------



## Minstrel

Saying "you aren't worth it to me" to spoil the experience of this site simply means your (as I consider them) mocking posts aren't worth my trying to continue responding to.

But, take it however you like. In my opinion, I remained extremely civil in the face of you not bothering to take my posts seriously.


----------

