From: Snoopy the Celtics Beagle <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: What's the difference between Kobe and Vin? Are you SERIOUS??
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:21:59 -0400
At 04:26 PM 10/11/03 -0400, Dan Forant wrote:
Please explain the difference in Kobe's case compared to the AA posts we
went through with Baker??? Also guys list all the taboo subjects you
don't
want discussed.
In no particular order:
Difference #1: Vin Baker plays for the Boston Celtics. Kobe does not.
This is a Celtics-based list.
Difference #2: This list discussed Baker's problem in context of how--or
if--he could continue to play for Boston, how the team treated his
problem, and how he has played since entering rehab. The discussion
regarding the details what may (or may not) have happened between Kobe
and his accuser has, so far as I can tell, nothing whatsoever to do with
the Celtics, or basketball in general, except as a peripheral comment on
the violent behavior of professional basketball players. Even then, this
kind of detail is unwarranted, at least here. I presume it might be at
least minimally more germaine to a Lakers-based list.
Granted, some of the talk about alcoholism in general may have wandered a
little far afield, but at least it still held strong relevance to Vin
Baker, and I personally found it informative.
As was mentioned, there are probably kids who read this list--though, I
would hope, with parental supervision. While we can't pretend they're so
naive as to think there are no bad people in the world, I think it's
reasonable to at least not go chapter and verse into events that really
don't have a place here.
For myself, I've never minded if the topic wanders a little occasionally,
but some things are just not appropriate, and I have to say that post
would be one of them. I'm not timid myself. As a writer, I've written a
violent scene or two myself (though only for books specifically geared
away from kids). We owe the kids our restraint in this venue, and even
our fellow adults. Not everyone is strong of stomach.
I think Dan seems to view this as a censorship (MY word, NOT his) issue.
I think it's more a matter of exercising good judgement, which frankly,
may not have happened. Ray did realize he should have posted a warning
header, which would have helped, and I give him credit for that. But I
think the wiser course would have been not to repost the article.
The matter with Kobe is unprecedented in several ways, not least of which
is the availability of graphic detail that in years past never left the
courtroom. Now such things are routinely included in books, movies, and
TV series. And so, online as well. I'm a proponent of the sharing of
information,but the question of the appropriate venue must be considered
before sharing it.
I'm sure there are sites online that gather all the facts--and
fiction--about Kobe's trial. I personally think it might be better for
those interested to simply go there, or join the appropriate list,
leaving it off this one. Of course, as an old friend used to say "Of
COURSE that's "just my opinion"--do YOU see any stone tablets here?"
It's just sad. Two families lives will be destroyed no matter what
happens. Do we REALLY need to hear all the sordid details?