What we haven't discussed other teams players here in totality? Like the Spree choking in detail?? Pierce's nite clubbing and stabbing? And adults can't discuss Kobe's problem without being graphic?
DanF
----- Original Message ----- From: "Snoopy the Celtics Beagle" <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <Celtics@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2003 11:21 PM Subject: What's the difference between Kobe and Vin? Are you SERIOUS??
> 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?