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

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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...
Well, Kim, the same introductionary qualifier right back at you.  I don't 
agree with you when you say that asking a member to talk about basketball 
is some form of censorship.  A listmember is free to suggest a topic of 
discussion, or even to request a topic be dropped from discussion.  
Similarly, he/she can request that things stay a little closer to the 
ostentatious uber-topic of the list (in this case, the Celtics, and 
basketball in general), and even object to the methods and tactics used by 
whomever's posting.  That's not censorship, it's people taking an active 
role in the list.  Censorship only comes from authority, and we have 
little (if any) authority on this list.  The List Imperator rules with a 
light fist, but he rules, make no mistake about it.

Even you used the qualifier "mostly" -- it's the rest of it that some of 
us object to.  Suggesting that we limit it to "basketball" is just a 
convenient shorthand for a request to keep the other stuff (putting words 
in others' mouths, et al), to a bare minimum, if it's necessary at all, I 
think.  Plus, we're all part of a group, and, from time to time, it's 
necessary to talk about the group dynamic, what's happening, and the like.


> 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 been some 
> interesting discussion.
I agree, except perhaps for the last part: what "misfortune" are you 
speaking about?  It's not "misfortune" to come in  and act the way he's 
acting/been acting.  It's rudeness.  "Misfortune" implies that it's some 
sort of act of god, or an accident, or out of one's hands, and that doesn'
t seem the case here.  People ought to be responsible for how they act.   
Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by "misfortune"?


> 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.
It's so much more pleasant on the other side, Kim ... come, join us, you 
know you want to... .  (The only thing wrong with the three-point shot is 
the distance -- make it longer and the mis-range game may develop more, 
imo.)

Anyway, I don't think people were saying that most here think Pierce is an 
unqualified good thing, only that he *is* a good thing, faults and 
failures and all.  Just as with the irrational anti-Walker faction, the 
counterpoint here is not a well thought-out argument, but a lot of stuff 
thrown up against the wall to see what sticks.  The main point seems to be 
that not only is Pierce a bad, terrible, selfish player, but that he 
actually embodies all that is wrong with with NBA basketball.  (Oh, and 
that he secretly wants Usama bin Laden's love child, too -- I almost 
forgot.)  In the process, of course, the aim seems to be to irritate as 
many people as humanly possible.  There are rants, and then there are 
rants, if you know what I'm saying.

Faced with that, it only *appears* as if some are in the opposite extreme 
camp (Paul is an unqualified good), when in reality, perhaps they are 
closer to the middle ground, as well.  At least, that's how it appears to 
me.

Bird