# (Steve) Patterson's halftime announcement



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Any bets? What will it be?

I'm excited.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I'll bet you $300,000,000,000,000 it'll be this:



> Trail Blazers President Steve Patterson will make himself available to speak with members of the media today at halftime of the Trail Blazers vs. Rockets game (approximately 6:30 p.m. PST). Patterson will meet with media in the Trail Blazers Post-Game interview room at the Rose Garden.
> 
> Patterson plans to make a statement regarding recent allegations that the organization is not holding players accountable for their actions per the club’s 25-point pledge.
> 
> Following the address, comments will be posted here. Please check back for more information.


-Pop


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> I'll bet you $300,000,000,000,000 it'll be this:
> 
> 
> ...


Boooooorrrriiing.

There's gotta be more than that, right?

Maybe not.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> Boooooorrrriiing.
> ...


Honestly, what else is he going to talk about? Is he going to fire the coach or trade a player at halftime? Not likely.

This kind of a press conference might be acceptable if we actually had a decent team. Right now it stinks of begging the fans to please, pretty please with sugar on top come back to watch this boring *** team.

-Pop


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SodaPopinski</b>!
> 
> 
> Honestly, what else is he going to talk about? Is he going to fire the coach or trade a player at halftime? Not likely.
> ...


Maybe we signed Trenton Hassell?

Nah, you're probably right.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

technical difficulties, Patterson was cut off.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

LOL. Nice piece of broadcasting KGW! :laugh:

I'm so disappointed I'm missing this most important announcement.

LMAO. :laugh:

-Pop


----------



## eggggg (Feb 14, 2005)

noboy cares... thats why he cut out and they went back to houston! classic !


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

It stayed on KXL no problem.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

that wasn't exactly earth shattering, but at the same time, it should finally put to rest the whining from some fans and crapzano's quest for "fixing" the team.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

What a waste of time. I sure hope putting on that press conference didn't cost the organization very much money.

Can't imagine they'll get much of a PR boost from it, considering there were probably only about 35 people in the Portland area watching it on TV.

-Pop


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

What was the gist of it?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Never mind, HERE it is.



> I’m in front of you tonight, because I’m deeply disturbed by the recent allegations levied against the Portland Trail Blazers organization. There are half-truths and incomplete pieces of information being strung together and used to justify a position that we are misleading our fans and enabling our players.
> 
> The allegations bring into question the very foundation of our 25-point pledge in which we vow to hold our players accountable for their behavior.
> 
> ...


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

He did acknowledge that there was a "paper" that had been
on the table between Darius and management..
He said "You bet there was"..then quickly changed subject.

I thought I heard the word paper..but don't see it there.
The rest was correct.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> He did acknowledge that there was a "paper" that had been
> on the table between Darius and management..
> He said "You bet there was"..then quickly changed subject.
> ...


you totally missed the point then, didn't you?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> What was the gist of it?


Signed Trenton Hassell.

But seriously...

We're committed to blah, blah, blah....and we've taken steps to weed out the yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...and we want to assure our fans that da-dah-da-dah-da-dah....


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Nope..didn't miss any point at all.
John said he had seen the document..I believe him.
Why wouldn't I believe him??

He did acknowledge they had talked.
I suppose you want me to believe there was nothing written down???
This was all an oral chat???

Sorry..
I don't believe that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Nope..didn't miss any point at all.
> John said he had seen the document..I believe him.
> Why wouldn't I believe him??
> ...


because it's not about whether or not there's a document. Its about whether or not the document is what Crapzano is making it out to be.

does it bother you that Damon was given back the money, on the agreement he gave it to head-start? What if the same was true of Darius?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Nope..didn't miss any point at all.
> John said he had seen the document..I believe him.
> Why wouldn't I believe him??
> ...


Uh....that's not what was said.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I don't have any reason to believe Steve Patterson on anything.
I do have a reason to believe John Canzano because I have
followed his reports on the Blazers and have always found him spot on !


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Fork,what are you talking about ??


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I don't have any reason to believe Steve Patterson on anything.
> I do have a reason to believe John Canzano because I have
> followed his reports on the Blazers and have always found him spot on !


cept that he was wrong about the Zach bouncing check thing, and the Darius gas thing..and most of what he's "reported" about the blazer has been A: an editorial and therefore neither right nor wrong and B: generally vague in nature so that you can take it however you want.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Fork,what are you talking about ??


I read Patterson's statement, above, and find it very easy to believe.

OTOH, Canzano, to me, is sounding more and more like the Geraldo Rivera of the PDX media.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Fork,what are you talking about ??




"He did acknowledge they had talked.
I suppose you want me to believe there was nothing written down???
This was all an oral chat???"

Nobody has ever said that this was an 'oral chat.'


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Why John is called names here in Portland is beyond me.

He has always written fair articles and given praise when praise
was warranted.
If any player is given back money on a behind the scene basis,
it is not right. It is bush league. But that's what this team has turned into.Bush league.

And to cover a bad credit card or check too is not right.
They need to spill the beans whenever they screw up.
Why not??


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Why John is called names here in Portland is beyond me.
> 
> He has always written fair articles and given praise when praise
> ...


Jackie, read Patterson's statement carefully. What doesn't make sense in what he said??


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Fork..I never said it was.
That's what I am trying to say.
I believe there was a document,and I believe john told the truth.
Read what I said.



You don't have to believe him,I could care less what you believe.


You can roll your eyes all you want.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Where did I say the statement didn't make sense?????
I said I didn't believe it.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I don't have any reason to believe Steve Patterson on anything.


You have no reason to believe Patterson or Canzano on anything, because neither have a vested interest in telling you the truth if it would be inconvenient and neither can prove to you that they're telling the truth.



> I do have a reason to believe John Canzano because I have
> followed his reports on the Blazers and have always found him spot on !


You mean, he's always said the things you already believed. Yes, people like being told what they already agree with.

Patterson explained the document. His explanation is perfectly plausible and, if he did a similar thing with Stoudamire, that adds much more credibility to his claim than Canzano has. Whether he did that with Stoudamire should be verifiable by whether the charitable donations that he details actually took place.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

You guys are so over the top about your hate for John it is 
pathetic.

You don't give him an ounce of credit for anything.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

What Minstrel said.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Why John is called names here in Portland is beyond me.
> 
> He has always written fair articles and given praise when praise
> was warranted.


he hasn't "always" written fair articles.



> If any player is given back money on a behind the scene basis,
> it is not right. It is bush league. But that's what this team has turned into.Bush league.


you do know that this happens *LEAGUE* wide, right?

and you also realize that it's not as simple as what you're implying it is??



> And to cover a bad credit card or check too is not right.
> They need to spill the beans whenever they screw up.
> Why not??


because it wasn't about "bad credit card". And even if it was, is that really a big deal?

I mean, really? to make these guys live on that high of a standard is really stupid.

We didn't used to spill the beans "everytime they screw up"..Why do we need to do that everytime now?

what if he runs a red light??

or has a late fee on his hollywood movie rentals?

or he gets a parking ticket!?!?!

OH MY GOD! THE HORROR!!!!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Patterson didn't convince me of anything tonight.

Why was there any talk of the issue??
Let him take his punishment and move on.

Patterson would do anything to put a positive spin on this 
mess called the Blazers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> You guys are so over the top about your hate for John it is
> pathetic.
> 
> You don't give him an ounce of credit for anything.


thats simply not true jackie, and you know it.

John is a good writer, when he's not writing about the blazers. Infact, I *LIKE* his blog. 

It's just it's not actually honorable writing to make something up, and present it as something it's not.

it's called fraud.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I don't remember any of this gradeschool stuff here years ago.
I am sure if there had been,you would have read it in the newspaper.

And if a Blazer stands in front of the camera grinning and giving
a contribution and the check bounces twice..
IT IS NOTEWORTHY


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

That's a pretty big charge Hap.
Are you accusing John of fraud??
As a Portland beat writer ??


You better back that one up..

Prove it !


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Patterson didn't convince me of anything tonight.


Have you asked yourself whether you were in any way _convinceable_? Is there anything Patterson could have said that would have swayed what you know to be Truth?



> Why was there any talk of the issue??
> Let him take his punishment and move on.


Why don't you ask Canzano such searing questions? Why did Canzano talk about the issue instead of letting it go?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> And if a Blazer stands in front of the camera grinning and giving
> a contribution and the check bounces twice..
> IT IS NOTEWORTHY



Why?

Ultimately, it cleared. That's all that's important.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Hey Jackle...

How big of a "charge" can it be on a message board? Seriously. It's a freakin' internet message board.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That's a pretty big charge Hap.
> Are you accusing John of fraud??
> As a Portland beat writer ??
> ...


Canzano levels
pretty big charges
without bothering

to prove anything!



Why is a supposed "journalist" immune from your hefty standards for Hap?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That's a pretty big charge Hap.
> Are you accusing John of fraud??
> As a Portland beat writer ??
> ...


fraud: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting 

A: he misrepsented what the document was and that the blazers were going to 1: pay Darius back for his fine and 2: pay the fine on top fo that.

I can do more, if you'd like.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

what are you talking about??
I read it in the paper.

what board??

If you're going to accuse someone of something,it would help
if you had the facts.

I don't read any boards..
I come here rarely anymore.
That's the closest I come to a board.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I don't remember any of this gradeschool stuff here years ago.
> I am sure if there had been,you would have read it in the newspaper.
> 
> ...


did you know that clyde skipped load of practices, and demanded new contracts every other year?


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

As I recall,he said he could prove it.
Maybe we should ask them to both play their cards.

By the way,you don't have to give me an explanation of the 
word fraud.
I did go to school,just like you.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

My take for what it's worth:

Canzano doesn't have it out to ruin the Blazers. Many posters here have (I think) seriously believed that. He's out to sell papers and impress his boss by having compelling columns. His article, whether responsible or not, made headlines. If any of us had Canzano's job and came across the information, we would have reported it as well.

Let's also not forget that Canzano has reported on some pretty great things that Blazers have done as well. He reported on Damon's agreement to take a random, unsanctioned drug test and how he passed it. He reported on Nick Van Exel's heart after being raised by a single mother. He reported on how Ruben has turned his life around after overcoming his drinking problem.

Canzano probably thought he had found some amazing scoop and got excited and didn't do his homework. It was an unfortunate incident, but certainly not unheard of in the media. Canzano made a mistake, but I don't think he was out to crumble the franchise.

Can't we seriously put this whole situation behind us? I honestly don't think very many Blazer fans were all that upset about it anyway. The two people who I think overreacted about the whole situation were Canzano and Patterson.

-Pop


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> what are you talking about??
> II don't read any boards..
> I come here rarely anymore.
> That's the closest I come to a board.


Ahhhh.....then you admit, you are impervious to _truth_.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Yeah,skipping practice is just like your mug in the camera 
giving 2 bounced checks.

Not in my neighborhood,or background.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Yeah,skipping practice is just like your mug in the camera
> giving 2 bounced checks.
> 
> Not in my neighborhood,or background.


you said whenever they screw up. missing practice is a screw up.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Sounds like the showing their cards I suggested.

Maybe it's a draw.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

SodaP

I generally agree with your viewpoint. I think much of this specific situation comes down to the interactions of Patterson and Canzano, when Canzano asked him about the document.

None of us truly know what took place then. However, I think one side is sort of sliding over the apparent "fact" that Patterson started off by denying the existence of the document. The other side may be that Canzano never bothered to listen to Patterson beyond that point. 

I suspect there is plenty of hypocrisy to go all around.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That's a pretty big charge Hap.
> Are you accusing John of fraud??
> As a Portland beat writer ??
> ...


He's not a beat writer. He's a columnist.

Get your facts straight.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bwatcher</b>!
> SodaP
> 
> I generally agree with your viewpoint. I think much of this specific situation comes down to the interactions of Patterson and Canzano, when Canzano asked him about the document.
> ...


Personally, I don't think Patterson was denying the existance of a document, per se, simply a _finalized_ version, which, of course, there never was.

Anything short of that is none of Canzano's business. (not that a finalized version even is.)


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

That's the impression I got,he seemed to acknowledge it,then 
moved away from talking about it.
And to say it wasn't the same document..heck a few word changes here and there could qualify Patterson to say it wasn't the same document.

I still think that Canzano uncovered a good story here.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*EXCUSE ME*

Bad day fork??

Pretty petty aren't you??

I couldn't think of his title..

EXCUSE ME


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That's the impression I got,he seemed to acknowledge it,then
> moved away from talking about it.
> And to say it wasn't the same document..heck a few word changes here and there could qualify Patterson to say it wasn't the same document.
> ...


The document itself might have been borderline news. But Canzano's slanting of the column, by mentioning two other un-newsworthy incidents (and getting his facts completely ****ed up too by the way) was unprofessional and stupid.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

You would argue with the undertaker taking you away.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

That's your opinion it was unprofessional.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: EXCUSE ME*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Bad day fork??
> 
> Pretty petty aren't you??
> ...


Doesn't matter what his title is. 

Do you know the diffreence between a columnist and a beat writer? I ask because it's kind of important. Beat writers deal in facts. Columnists deal in opinions. You're taking a columnist's writing and thinking about it (and posting about it) as if it's a beat writer's report. 

There's a big difference.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That's your opinion it was unprofessional.


You think a columnist getting facts wrong is professional?

Okay.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Yes,actually that is correct.

But since you had your fingers on speed dial looking for something
to be knit picking,I didn't have a chance.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I give up Fork..

you are 100 percent correct on everything you have said.


happy?


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

or are you going to argue you are 110% correct??


give it up


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> or are you going to argue you are 110% correct??
> 
> 
> give it up


I'll settle for 100% right.

Because I am.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Gosh, I have been reminded why I don't frequent this board anymore.

It's like a return to grade school with the bullies allowed to roam.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I don't read any boards..
> I come here rarely anymore.


You've made like 50 posts in the last 3 hours, if that is "rarely coming here anymore" then I would be afraid of what you would consider a person who posts regularly on this or any other board.


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

John Canzano was one of the fat kids no one played with so now he tries to tear down others to build his worthless self back up to par.. Hey john, thats not a zit its your penis...:laugh:


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

*I actually agree with Patterson*

One point I think you all are missing. Patterson said that he didn't want to suspend Darius for an extensive amount of time because of the impact it would have on his image. If they would have suspended him form 10 games, it would have created a very large national story that would have probably painted Darius as a worse guy than he is. 

I don't care for Darius. I think he is a very immature and unfocused athlete. I think he thinks of himself as a superstar, yet three teams and numerous coaches disagree. But, I think Darius is going to be one of those guys who eventually will mature and give us something special. If you suspend him for an extrodinary amount of time, you risk the chance of losing him for good. Darius grew up in one of the worst ghetto's in America in East St. Louis. The fact that he made it out without a lot of the same problems that plague his community is a testament to him and enough of a reason for us to try to keep this kid.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> does it bother you that Damon was given back the money, on the agreement he gave it to head-start? What if the same was true of Darius?


I am glad that was brought up Hap... I was about to say that as well. It gives a little perspective on what actually happened with Damon's donation.... it was in response to him being suspended by the team and fined.... with the threat of the suspension and fine not being held up in court, the Blazers recsinded the fine... and magically Damon made a donation


No matter how they spin it.. Damon's donation was a direct result of his actions for being suspended. If he had made it say 2 weeks ago... nearly 2 years past his suspension, it would be much easier to swallow.


But I still applaud Damon for doing it, and the Blazers for matching it.


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

I agree with Trader Bob..This is the point every one is missing.. That returning the money to Darius is turning a negative into a positive if he donates it to needier causes and charities...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

And by the way.... Darius did not have a problem at the gas station with bad credit. It was reported in the media, when Darius and his girlfriend came back... they discovered the attendant had run the card upside down....

hardly a problem with bad credit.

Give credit to Darius for going back and making it right as well


If the media reported every instance of every person in town who had problems processing a debit or credit card every day, there would be no room to rag on the Blazers 

wait a minute.. what a novel idea


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

There are two interesting points here I think:

1. Steve Patterson's version of what happened comports far more with what Kerry Eggers in The Trib reported than what Canzano reported.

Canzano was looking for a sensational story and got one. That's his gig. As some of you may know, I originated the Blazer Blog at Oregonlive a few years back. What I learned in my short tenure was that controversy is easier to write and gets more attention. But one still must be responsible and thorough, and in that, Canzano fell short.

2. I would like to work for a guy like Steve Patterson. He is intelligent and fair. The Blazers are lucky to have him.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> what are you talking about??
> I read it in the paper.
> 
> ...


In all sincerity..... let's not go there


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

I do believe that Canzano made this out to be much more of a story than it actually was. I commend Patterson for talking at halftime, and it actually made me feel a bit better about the situation. However you could really tell that Patterson was pissed off. Either that or he has a bit of an abrasive personality!


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Jackie is about as no name-calling, please .

That's why I put her on my ignore list ages ago.

I suggest you all do the same.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

No offense jackie, but...

You seem to be offended / upset because people are arguing with your opinions on the matter. We are all entitled to our opinions, but I think was causes friction between you and others is you simply state your opinion but don't explain why in any detail. Others go into depth in their explanations and point out facts. That's not to say they are right and you are wrong, but at least they present their case, as aposed to what most of your responses are, usually along the lines of "I have no reason to believe this" or "such and such is professional in my opinion."

Maybe you should explain why in a clear manner with details and facts? It would save a lot of bad feelings and the many many "I know you are but what am I" posts between others and yourself.

Just a suggestion. I know you feel like everyone else is trying to bully you. I personally disagree with your assesment, but I'd also like to hear in more depth why you feel the way you do, because maybe there IS something that I'm not taking into consideration. Care to share your thoughts with us on WHY you don't believe Patterson? Or some specific instances in which Canzano has proved to be such a professional and accurate writer? Thanks, TBD


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Wow Jackie...I mean WOW!!! I ususally ignore ignorance when I see it but to come at and call Patterson a liar by saying there is nothing you believe in the statement, beacause you believe what Canzano told you...that's pure hypocrisy.

If anything Canzano supporters should feel better that the Blazers organization came out and said that the settlement in fact was a part of their discussion. Where does Patterson deny that fact? Where does he deny that the form exists? 

If you would take the time to read the aforementioned document there is a passage in there about the settlement being completely confidential. Therefore, if prior to Canzano proclaiming he had a copy, Patterson was legally obligated to deny it's existence as was Miles' agent....LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DENY. On top of that Canzano is actually backpeddling a little, originally proclaiming that it was a Blazers Attorney that drew it up and now saying he's not sure which party originated the document. As far as explanaitons why it was on the server at 1 Center Court, in todays paperless business world there are many reasons why it would exist there.

Petterson was right on the money when he said dealling with issues is enough, but when you add on the constant fires the media starts by overstating normal things (relevant to operatign a sports franchise) then it makes his job as well as the other Blazers staff a far more difficult thing to do.

Imagine being in conflict woth you're spouse, but everytime you start having a breakthrough a friend runs and tells that spouse that you were checking out a person of the opposite sex, when in actuality you glanced up and they happened to be there. How much harder is it to patchi things up when 3rd parties that shouldn't be involved are involoved, and their involvement is misrepresenting one side or the other.

BTW any one who takes media at face value, needs a healthy dose of reality check.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*But the media is always right...*

But comon people..the media is always right...just remember...

1. The Media always tells 100% of the truth.
2. The Media doesn't benefit financially from the news it generates.
3. Believe everything you read. Because its in print, its the truth right?
4. There is no place like home. If you click your heals together over and over, and repeat "There is no place like home", you will wake up there.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

WOW!  

I've certainly learned a little bit about some of you today - reading this entire thread at once.

My jaw is still in the down position!!
:jawdrop: 

Who can piss farther over the fence??

I hope its electric.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

FoxSports.com on the whole orderal...



> Item: So much for the 25-point pledge to clean up the Portland Trail Blazers, orchestrated by president Steve Patterson and general manager John Nash. The two-game suspension levied at Darius Miles for his verbal tirade at coach Maurice Cheeks took on a new twist this week when someone within the organization provided Oregonian columnist John Canzano with a copy of a Blazers computer-generated proposal to pay back Miles the lost money from his suspension, with interest.
> 
> What this really means: If you thought the organization had worse problems before, think again. They're sliding down Mount Hood without brakes. Patterson initially denied there was such a proposal to Canzano, who promptly showed him the paperwork. The Oregonian then ran the proposal in its entirety. The NBA recently released the average paid attendance of the Blazers, which has dipped below 10,000, good for second worst in the league, as they head to their second consecutive season out of the playoffs after 21 straight postseason appearances.
> 
> ...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RedHot&Rolling</b>!
> WOW!
> 
> I've certainly learned a little bit about some of you today - reading this entire thread at once.
> ...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> If any of us had Canzano's job and came across the information, we would have reported it as well.


Hap, I think you are someone who usually gets it right but this time I beg to disagree. A responsible journalist or columnist would FIRST check that the information is complete and correct. This would naturally mean contacting the Blazers for more details. Instead, Canzano rushed into print without bothering to verify his facts and then added some ridiculous and irrelevant charges. This convinces me he was more interested in a snow job than getting at the truth. More Rush Limbaugh than Seymour Hersch, if you will.
The San Francisco Chronicle, which normally ignores the Blazers, on Sunday had a headline and story citing "documents that came into the hands of the Oregonian" and added that the team had to bail two players out of (unnamed) financial embarrassments. So the story is getting national play.
Now, this is not on the level of nonexistent weapons or babies tossed out of incubators but it is still dishonest and bad journalism on the part of the Oregonian.
I got emailed Steve Patterson's statement and I think it is reasonable and answers the questions. Can I prove it is true? Well, some of it is provable. More than Canzano, at any right.
I have no reason to "hate on" Canzano, I don't know him and don't live in Portland so I don't usually see his column. But his actions have caused me to question his integrity.

P.S. Off topic, can ANYTHING be done about the crawling slowness of this site? It's not my computer, other web sites open up in reasonable time but this one takes 10 minutes to open a page!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>crandc</b>!
> 
> 
> Hap, I think you are someone who usually gets it right but this time I beg to disagree.


I don't believe it was me who that quote should be attributed too...


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Patterson's statement makes no sense to me. He goes on and on about how they worked out an agreement to give Damon's money to charity which has nothing to do with the Miles situation. He turns around and admits he was considering giving money back to Miles. Well if he was giving it to Miles and not charity, what exactly his defense for all of this??? The Damon story appears to be smoke screen to avoid confronting the issue at hand.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Patterson's statement makes no sense to me. He goes on and on about how they worked out an agreement to give Damon's money to charity which has nothing to do with the Miles situation. He turns around and admits he was considering giving money back to Miles. Well if he was giving it to Miles and not charity, what exactly his defense for all of this??? The Damon story appears to be smoke screen to avoid confronting the issue at hand.


You, honestly, don't understand the relevance of him discussing Damon's situation? Or, are you just bein' dense on purpose--yo?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Wow, look how yellow Paul Allen's teeth are in that picture.....He's a grossburger.....


----------

