Re: thoughts on this list and the Celtics

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hey Snoop, I appreciate the feedback.  Specific
comments are below next to relevant quotes...


--- Snoopy the Celtics Beagle
<snoopy@celticsbeagle.net> wrote:
> It'll be easier to put my replies after the relevant
> comments--well, easier 
> for me, at least...here we go:
> At 10:32 AM 4/11/03 -0700, Ryan W wrote:
> >The most distressing aspect of this season has been
> >the loss of sanity it has produced among both
> players
> >and fans.  Per this list, previously fine posters
> like
> >Kestus and Mark Berry have taken their heretofore
> >objective slants and made it personal.
> 
> With apologies to anyone on the list in possession
> of a Journalism degree, 
> it's SUPPOSED to be personal.  We are, after all,
> people.  If we weren't 
> fans of the Celtics, we wouldn't BE here.  OK, it
> doesn't explain Way of 
> the Ray, but I think of him as an anomaly in that
> particular.  :>))
> 
> I expect people here to be passionate.  Celtics fans
> aren't like the 
> golfing crowd, clapping with one hand when someone
> hits the ball with the 
> golf stick.  (or whatever it's called, I don't know
> any more about golf 
> than Charles Schulz described in "Peanuts").  They
> yell, scream, stomp 
> their feet, and PARTICIPATE.  Sometimes, given the
> chance, having the fans 
> involved is like having an extra player on the
> court.  And those fans have 
> always stuck with the team, despite the three point
> shots, Rick Pitino, ML 
> Carr (as coach), and He Whose Name Shall Not Profane
> This List from 1978.
> 
> So it is here.  When you've been through the
> incredible ups and downs with 
> the C's, it becomes personal.  So the posts are
> likewise 
> personal.  Sometimes, yes, it gets out of hand.  But
> isn't it nice to be on 
> a list where people really care about the subject at
> hand?  I'm a member of 
> another list--non-Celtics--where there were a total
> of two posts in three 
> years.  I'd forgotten I was still on it before the
> post showed up one 
> day.  Truly sad.  Despite the occasional
> aggravation, I'd rather have a 
> list where people show up, even if they are
> aggravating, they make me THINK.
> 
> Although, I admit, I've had my fill of some of the
> personal name calling 
> towards listmembers.

I too appreciate passionate posts.  What I take issue
is when people harp on the same things, like trading
Antione, for inordinate periods of time.  Furthermore,
the longer the tirade lasts the more the insanity
increases....until only the trade of Antione will
"fix" it.  People working themselves into an
unreasonable tizzy is what bothers me...it doesn't
work like that...let's talk, exchange ideas, have fun,
and leave a little room for infallability...
> 
> >Longtime thoughtful and sincere posters have left,
> such as Joe
> >H. and Bill Bird, leaving this list with still
> fewer
> >writers of quality.  What are posts of quality?
> >That's a tough question.  I'll tell you what is
> >not....anything by Dan Forant (Dan, as a side note,
> >try writing more than 2 sentences per post; and
> >furthermore try making what you write intelligent).
> 
> What, it's not possible to be relevant and concise? 
> As a well-known beagle 
> said, "There's no sense doing a lot of barking if
> you really don't have 
> anything to say."  I don't always agree with Dan,
> but at least he gets to 
> the point, a talent you may notice I lack.  :>))) 
> As far as intelligence, 
> he uses proper grammar and spelling.  Basketball, as
> much as we may like 
> it, isn't rocket science.  Geometry, maybe, but not
> rocket science.

Not *always* proper grammar and spelling...but who
cares, that's really not the problem I'm talking
about....  My problem stems from the overall messages
of Dan's posts.  What can you say in one sentence? 
Not much, usually "The C's are headed to lotto land." 
Which I'm sure is very heartfelt but still is
worthless to a "discussion" board.  His posts are like
small talk, and what we need here is conversation. 
Not that I'm saying that he can't post his little 2
sentence asides...I'm just saying it'd be cooler if he
didn't and instead posted something of substance...

> 
> >In the absence of thoughtful posting (and in the
> >malaise that is this season) others have filled the
> >void miserably.  Posts by Eggy, though
> well-written,
> >are sarcastic and pure mental masturbation (as if
> this
> >list is some substitute for a creative writing
> class).
> 
> So your definition is now expanded and clarified. 
> To be a "thoughtful" 
> post, it must be long and serious.  What's wrong
> with whimsy?  Lewis 
> Carroll made a career out of whimsy, as did T.S.
> Elliot.  Incidentally, to 
> qualify as "mental masturbation" Eggy would have to
> NOT post what she 
> writes.  The phrase you're looking for is "indecent
> eggsposure".  (Sorry, I 
> just couldn't resist that one).
> 
> I have a weird sense of humor.  Not necessarily,
> good, just weird.  I don't 
> mind if someone tries to be creative in the way they
> express 
> themselves.  We are all individuals, and we have our
> own way of 
> thinking.  How nice that Eggy doesn't feel the need
> to fit in a mold while 
> joining a group.  She's not hurting anyone, and
> she's having fun.  What 
> more do you want?  I appreciate silly as much as
> serious, and believe 
> there's room for both.

There is room for both....and if Eggy kept it pure
whimsy it would be fine.  But usually it's whimsically
mean-hearted...so perhaps I should have clarified.
> 
> >  Only Way has been consistent (that is, consistent
> to
> >what he normally offers); consistent in
> occasionally
> >offering tidbits of information and of offering
> >semi-intelligent opinions (and Way, thanks for the
> >postings from other places and locales, it is an
> >important contribution to the list).  In short, as
> >disappointing as this season has been, this list
> >itself has been more so.
> 
> Doesn't say much that the only poster whose
> contributions you like you 
> refer to as semi-intelligent.  "Thanks, Way--you
> almost have a brain that 
> works."  Remind me not to have you run my PR if I
> ever become famous.  :>))

My overall and general point was that last year this
list was great.  Something has changed.  Only Ray and
his abrasive personality have stayed to same.  And no
matter how much he bothers you, you still must respect
that...

>>Kedrick Brown--his non-role on this team will spell
>>its ultimate doom.  Would somebody free Kedrick
>>Brown?
>> What does ***** (Kedrick)have to do to get some PT
>>up in
>>this motherfucker?

>Perhaps you meant it as a joke, but that's
>offensive.  Really 
>offensive.  I'm not into the whole PC thing, but
>there's some words and 
>phrases you just don't casually throw around, and I
>personally think 
>that's 
>one of them.  You were saying about "thoughtful"
>posts??

My bad.  But, I still have the right, and will
continue to in the future, to use the word "nigger". 
Perhaps on this list is not the best place.  But I
think it fit Kedrick's situation....there is no reason
to get jerked around by O'Brien in the manner that he
has been (in and out of games and/or the lineup, with
seemingly no reason whatsoever).  That said, I will
attempt to refrain in the future, but just as Eggy can
be whimsical, I can say "nigger".  Plus, the word
itself, seeing as it was, is, and, in the future, will
be a racial slur, should only be censured when used in
such a manner.  You must admit I didn't use it in such
a way.  Furthermore the argument may be made that
using it in non-slurring manners actually helps remove
the power the word has to hurt.  What are your
thoughts on that?


>May Rick Pitino be your houseguest for two years
>while subjecting you 
>to 
>repeated showings of Celtics games he coached. 
>Bleah!!  Shame on you 
>for 
>suggesting the press.  I shudder to think of Allen
>Iverson salivating 
>at 
>the thought of a Celtics press.

Very funny.  But the press is a weapon and to "outlaw"
it because the previous coach used it too much would
be like outlawing the three pointer after O'Brien is
fired....

<No, the offensive scheme isn't great.  But it was,
<realistically, the 
<only 
<way the C's had a chance to post a winning record
<with the players they 
<have.  You can't adapt when you don't have the
<talent on court TO 
<adapt.  Playing more traditional ball would have put
>the C's in the 
<lottery 
<the last two years, and I guarantee you, BOTH Pierce
<and Walker would 
<have 
<left the team.  Then where are the Celtics? 
<Nowhere.  By the way, have 
<you 
<noticed how several coaches have been quietly
<increasing their reliance 
<on 
<the three after watching the C's?  Hubie Brown used
<to excoriate the 
<Celtics for shooting outside the arc.  Now, his
<Grizzlies rely on it a 
<LOT.

I'll resist this notion for the rest of my life.  We
do have the talent to play a slightly more traditional
offense.  The three-point centric offense we currently
run is innovative and, in some respects, should be a
model for other "bad" teams to follow, but still, we
should be running better, passing better, and shooting
better.  And those three could be improved by a change
in offense that would still take into account our
talent-based shortcomings...
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com