Re: What's the difference between Kobe and Vin? Are you SERIOUS??

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Uummm OJ wasn't an active player when he went head hunting......Read and
listen to the news posts linking Kobe to basketball. Is he a pilot? A miner?
Brain surgeon? Milkman? A Martian maybe? Relative of ET?

DanF

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cecil" <cecil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Celtics@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: What's the difference between Kobe and Vin? Are you SERIOUS??


> I don't personally believe that Kobe's case has any more to do with
> basketball than OJ's had to do with football.
>
> Cecil
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Snoopy the Celtics Beagle <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <Celtics@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 1:17 PM
> Subject: Re: What's the difference between Kobe and Vin? Are you SERIOUS??
>
>
> > Maybe I'm naive, or perhaps just nostalgic, but I'd like to think
parents
> > somewhere are still making an effort to exert a reasonable influence
over
> > exactly how much info the kids get, lest they somehow DO end up "on some
> > porn site".
> >
> > And, to clarify, I realize that Kobe himself is basketball related.  The
> > notion of whether he will play--or how well--is indeed relevant, though
at
> > this juncture, perhaps moreso to the Lakers than to the Celtics.  But
> > chapter and verse on his accuser's physical condition?  Sorry, that's
not
> > relevant in my view.  And if "All any kid has to do is look at a
newspaper
> > and they'll get the same article," then why post it here?  We play LA
> twice
> > a year, unless both teams make the Finals.   How important is it to the
> > Celtics on a daily basis?
> >
> > At 10:05 AM 10/13/03 -0400, Shawn Niles wrote:
> >
> > >I hate to agree with Ray, but I see no problem posting the Kobe
articles.
> > >This is a basketball related list, and Kobe's trial certainly has a lot
> to
> > >do with basketball. As for the comment about the kids....  well you
> better
> > >block your kids from MSN, CNN, Boston.com, and any other news sites
> > >because thats where the article came from. It is an AP released
article.
> > >It's not like Ray went on some porn site and posted an article from
> there.
> > >Kobe's case is a NEWS story. All any kid has to do is look at a
newspaper
> > >and they'll get the same article.
> > >
> > >
> > >>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?
> > >
> > >_________________________________________________________________
> > >Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month
> > >(depending on the local service providers in your area).
> > >https://broadband.msn.com