Lies, rumors, and video tape

[Tammo29@xxxxxxx]

Ryan W wrote:
>>"Antoine is a pretty decent guy (actually, I think he
is a great guy and a great player)....furthermore this
notion that he sent a hit man posse into the stands
seems off base to say the least (not picking on you,
Jim, directly, as I've heard this repeated by others
on the list).  We need to remember that even if we
repeat something on this list AS IF it is fact, it
doesn't mean that it is fact.  It has been rumored (by
those, I would submit, that don't like Antoine to
begin with) that Antoine sent his boys after that
fan....well, beyond that rumor, it has never been
verified factually, either by the press or the
police....so let's stop spreading that lie." >>

Then in a subsequent post he wrote:

>>"However, if so-and-so unnamed player TRULY is a "very
heavy binge drinker", then any libel (it's only libel
and not slander because libel pertains to written
defamation) suit won't occur (or if it does occur,
wouldn't be fruitful once the truth of the statement
in question has be established).  Thus, if your source
is reliable, you should tell.  Furthermore, while
email messages are subject to libel (wrongly I might
add), you can always get past the possibility of a
suit by crouching whatever you say in opinion.  For
example, don't say, "so-and-so player is a heavy binge
drinker," but instead say, "I think so-and-so player
is a heavy binge drinker," followed closely by, "I
give this opinion credence because it was
substantiated by a source I believe to be reliable."
Thus, in the end, as long as you don't make claims
supposing a FACTUAL basis, you will be fine.  So, who
do you THINK this big drinker is???>>




 Am I the only one who sees hypocrisy in these two posts?
 Please explain to me why I shouldn't repeat something I saw with my own two
eyes, but someone else is urged to repeat something that is no more than
second hand rumor?

 I know what I saw and until recently anyone with a computer could have seen
the same just by visiting the Celtics own website which featured a video clip
of the incident at the bottom of their front page.

The clip started with Walker being led back to his seat by security after
being pulled away from a man in the stands, none to happy, carrying on a
conversation with the security officer with his back to the playing floor. We
find out
later, according to Jackie McMullen, that he is telling the security officer
to leave him alone, get his hands off him and don't ever touch him again.
This was printed in the Globe quoted from the security officer in question.
 Then you see a commotion to the right, only afterwards realizing these were
Walkers friends coming down from their seats.  Walker sees his friends, says
something to them, then turns and points very adamantly to someone in the
stands to his left.  Security quickly grabs at least two of the men to the
right of
Antoine (Walkers friends) as they struggle to get to the man Walker's pointed
out to his left.  In the meantime Walker calmly turns his back to the
commotion and takes a seat like nothing is happening.
I saw the video about a half dozen times.  There is no doubt about what was
going on.  This isn't something anyone made up.  It isn't rumor on innuendo.
It happened and although you might not have seen it, plenty of other people
did.
I'm not saying he called his friends down from their seats. I didn't see
that.
My point was then, and remains today, Antoine had already confronted the man
and said his peace.  When he saw his friends coming down from the stands he
could very well have calmed them himself, telling them to go back to their
seats
that it was over and he had taken care of it.  Instead, he did the opposite. 
He pointed out the season ticket holder then washed his hands of the whole
mess by ignoring the ugly consequences as it happened behind him.
I have no problem repeating that as fact because it is fact.
Video doesn't lie and I'm offended that you would accuse me of spreading lies
in one post and then turn around and encourage others to possibly do just
that in the next.


TAM