Re: The Kobe case

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Jim Hill <jahill199@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Your post is utter nonsense.  Some of us skip the
> posts we don't want to
> read and don't find the need to censor others.

You're missing the point, Jim.  The reason that the
details of Kobe's alleged rape should not be broadcast
on this list is that it is not appropriate to this
list.  Just last week our listserve admin., Paul M.,
reminded everyone that this list is for primarily for
Celtic-related discussion and secondarily for
basketball-related discussion as it relates to the
Celtics.  Anything not within those parameters is
inappropriate to this list.  The details concerning
Kobe's alleged rape victim do not fit into those
parameters and are therefore inappropriate to this
list.  It's not about censorship.  Hell, I'm all for
discussion about vaginal tears (sarcasm).  But it has
its place...and that place is not hear.  Don't
complain (as Dan F has) that adults should be able to
decide what they want to read and what they want to
say.  That is not at issue here (nor would anyone
disagree with such a statement).  What is at issue are
the limits of this list, and what they are entailed to
foster . . . i.e. Celtic discussion.  Anything else is
inappropriate.  

As for your comment that the "rest of us skip the
posts we don't want to read and don't find the need to
censor others" . . .   First of all, you don't know to
skip a post unless you read it . . . after which time
you can no longer skip it.  As for the need to censor,
well, that happens all time . . . we only need to
think back to when I used to the word "n*gger" and
everyone took turns castigating me.  Censorship is
alive and well.  In fact, your post itself is
advocating censorship by telling Snoop, Greg, myself
and others that we can't speak up when the rules of
this list are violated.  At the bottom of this email
you tell Greg to grow up and stop controlling others .
. . well, you're trying to control Greg.  Remember, if
you end up screaming censorship too loud, you'll end
up censoring others.

> >Frankly I am shocked by the those who haven't
> spoken up.  Your silence is
> >quiet endorsement in my eyes.  Simple as that, so
> maybe we do need 100 more
> >emails in the next 24 hours on the topic.  The
> really loud majority needs
> to
> >make their case now.
> 
> >Argue for something that makes sense next time.
> 
> What would make you think you have the right to
> impose your morals on
> anyone?
> 
> >Come on Tam even you can't argue for more details
> on ... .?  This is what
> you and Dan are supporting
> >by your emails, whether you know it or not.
> 
> Your attack on Tam and Dan is childish.  Grow up. 
> Control what you read and
> stop attempting to control others.
> 
> <Jim

Actually, Greg's attack wasn't childish, it was just
stupid.  What he should have said is what I said . . .
this list is for celtic-related banter and anything
outside of that is inappropriate (the Catholic guilt
trip move was a little heavy-handed . . . and it only
brought out the opposite response). 

Next I'll take on Eggy's ill-thought-out comments...

Eggy wrote:

> As for this foolish Kobe stuff - 
> 
> < Frankly I am shocked by the those who haven't
> spoken up.> - Groddy 
> 
> As I interpreted Tammo's comments, Celt-related
> posts have not 
> attracted near as much interest or responses as did
> WayRay's 
> Kobe column.

Who cares?  Are you arguing that we set up a list
serve to discuss the details of Kobe's alleged rape? 
And, by the way, the interest generated by Ray's Kobe
post was not because of the content of the article
(i.e., the rape), but because of the inappropriateness
of such content on this list.  It generated discussion
about what is appropriate to the list . . . discussion
which techinically is not appropriate to this list
(I'm so clever).


> As for you, Groddy and Ubi and others
> like you (of which 
> there is a particularly bad batch of), I can only
> wish that you all would 
> post a few Celt-related opinions once in a while
> rather than only coming 
> on board merely to flex your cyber muscles in
> voicing your disapproval 
> of just about every other poster. 

Listen, Eggy, as members of this list serve, we all
have a right to post with whatever frequency we
desire.  However, I, like you, wish we could just talk
Celtics . . . in fact, that's the entire point of this
email (and, even if he doesn't recognize it, of Greg's
as well).  As I mentioned beforehand, this list is for
Celtic-related discussion.  This is a strict
limitation.  Even a discussion that debates whether a
certain post or topic is non-Celtic related and
inappropriate is, itself, inappropriate.  My solution
to this whole mess, if this list would be so kind as
to let me propogate a little more inappropriateness,
is that we direct all further discussion concerning
whether this or that statement, post, or news story
posted by Way is inappropriate to the listmaster.  He,
ultimately, has the final say in determining whether
something is germane to the list or not.  In this way,
we can preserve the list for purely celtic-related
discussion, and keep the meta-discussion off-list
(though I'm sure Paul M. will be less than thrilled
when he starts to get emails attempting to argue that
the details of Kobe's rape trial relate to either the
Celtics or basketball and thus should be a subject of
discussion).

Ryan

P.S.  Here's some celtic-related discussion . . .
y'all need to chill out.  We've had only 3 preseason
games.  They were over 4 nights.  This is the best
team, talent-wise, that we've had since O'Brien got
here.  And the one thing that can be said above all
else in regard to O'Brien is that he gets more out of
his players than he should . . . thus, with such an
unprecedented level of talent, we should have an
unprecedented level of performance (barring major
injuries, of course).  Personally, I'd rather the
preseason go badly in the beginning . . . it provides
greater impetus for the players to work harder in
practice and makes the other teams less worried about
playing us . . . thus making that giant can of
whup-ass all the more sweeter when it gets pulled out.
 So all y'all can just chill and remember that it's
better to peak later or to not peak at all, then to
peak in the beginning.

As for all the Mark B. paranoia about the destruction
that Antoine and O'Brien are bringing to the
Celtics...all I have to say is . . . come, on.  I
mean, COME ON.  Here's a proposition to remember.  If
the Celtic's perform either at or below last year's
level, then changes will be made, with either Antoine,
O'Brien, or both leaving.  If we perform at a higher
level than last year, then at least one will stay (and
I'd be willing to say that both will stay).  Upshot? 
I personally feel that there is no way we perform
worse or the same as we did last year (barring
injury).  We just have too much talent as compared to
last year's team to perform below last year's level. 
As I said earlier, the only thing that O'Brien has
proved as a coach is that he gets more out of his team
than the talent would normally warrant.  The same will
happen this year . . . since we have more talent than
last year, he'll get more out of this team than last
year, and we'll have a record better than last year,
and hell, you get my point.  

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com