Re: Fw: [Celtics' Stuff from hero to goat

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:21 AM 9/8/02 -0400, Dorine Pratt wrote:
>Thank you, Cecil!  My feelings, exactly!
>Dorine

Dorine, we usually agree but I have to admit that I don't this time. I'm not a big fan of censorship or telling others what they can or can't say based upon personal preferences rather than some larger issue, which is what telling him to just talk basketball comes down to. He IS talking basketball mostly. As much as a lot of other discussion on the list. Now suggesting he be accurate about the facts or not put words in others' mouths, THAT's another issue...

IMO the problem with Lance isn't his anti-Pierce rants per se. Most go far enough over the top to carry their own warning flag that there's a loon on board. And we've put up with assorted rants by others. The problem is his overly aggressive insistence that **anyone** who doesn't totally agree with his view of PP is nothing but a PP worshipper, paired with the irrational seeming wildness of some of his claims about the evil that Paul does (yup, none of those USA basketball players ever had a selfish thought in their lives until they met Paul, it's all his fault). No middle ground is possible according to him. Anything anyone else says is taken as evidence that he's right about their bias, just as anything Paul says or does (or doesn't say or do) can be twisted to make it look evil. This is supposed to be a discussion list, but that sort of attitude rapidly stifles discuss or focuses it on personalities. THAT's a problem. *shrug* Lance's misfortune in preventing what could have bee
n some interesting discussion.

BTW I'm also not so sure you and Cecil are right that most people on the list look on Paul as an unqualified good thing. My guess would be that a lot are with me in the middle, seeing both virtues and faults in Paul's play and actions. Sorta like Walker or the 3 point shot itself. God I hate that shot. 

Kim

Cecil wrote:
>Gee, I don't know.  I'd say that the general feeling on this list B.L.
>(before Lance) was that Pierce was good for the Celtics.  Maybe now though,
>you have convinced some that, in reality, PP doesn't give a hoot about
>winning a damn thing.  That perhaps he is a statistic-driven.  Someone who
>refuses to play defense and hogs the ball without ever getting an assist.  A
>player who will not grab rebounds or help out on defense.  He could be a
>real monster who stomps on puppies and steals his colleagues' lunchmoney
>also.
>
>I don't think many here believe that...and though your effort is valiant,
>you are not going to enlighten folks in the manner it appears you are
>trying.  A player doesn't come back from a life-threatening injury so he can
>yell at his teammates.  The progress this guy has made during his first few
>years in the league has been outstanding.  Tmac, by comparison, barely got
>off the bench during his first season and played a little more during the
>next.  Everyone knew he had spectacular skills, but it takes time to mature
>to a level which is acceptable to the many knowledgeable Celtics fans.  Paul
>has not finished maturing yet but then neither have some of the members of
>this list who resort to namecalling and cute little references to people's
>names, etc.
>
>The fact that Paul Moriarty is allowing you to continue in this vein may be
>temporary, and I have been told that you have inundated other lists with
>your "insight".  But others in this house have solid basketball pedigrees
>and offer their views without causing such foolishness.  Is that your
>intent?  To create hard feelings with individual members?  You came in here
>taking shots at Tammo.  Called her a "he".  For what purpose?  Why?
>
>If you are going to stay here, please just talk basketball.
>
>Cecil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Lance Jacobson <lancejacob@attbi.com>
>To: <celtics@igtc.com>; Kim Malo <kimmalo@mindspring.com>
>Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 9:06 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: [Celtics' Stuff from hero to goat
>
>
>> Y'know, you might try to accept that people can disagree with you about
>Paul
>> without being a "Paul's Our Guy" worshipper instead. It would save a lot
>of
>> pointless arguments.>>Kim
>>
>> Disagree?  Jeez, I'd never noticed.
>>
>> The writer branded Pierce as an awful participant in the games, on the
>team
>> and on the bench.  Nobody else got so badly panned.
>>
>> No one says you're worshipping PP.  I'm saying that it's been pointed out
>that
>> Pierce is BAD for a team.  Bad for unity, bad for team play, bad for
>spirit,
>> bad for performance.  How many on this board would agree with that?
>>
>> It's easy to state that you disagree, but it would help if you gave
>evidence
>> as to why.  I've tried to understand Bird's loyalty in the face of such a
>> lousy week-long performance culminating in two huge losses (the bad blood
>> didn't start on Wednesday) but there's no real argument.  Isn't a
>discussion
>> board there for the purpose to express and debate points of view?