NY Post Says: Jefferson Not Happy about Trade

[paulpressey25]

This message board is going down the toilet. .

Nah. All good input. Sort out what you want.

We'd only be going down the toilet if someone suggested the banger we now need is John Amaechi.

[europa]

Maybe someone can come up with an example of a player doing this, but I can't remember for the life of me a time in the NBA when a player was traded to a team and was so pissed off that they held out or didn't report.

Alonzo Mourning is the only one I can think of.

I'm not concerned about Jefferson boycotting the Bucks. The worst-case scenario is he turns into another Terrell Brandon who pouts his way out of town or a Keith Van Horn, who never wants to be with the Bucks and shows no heart before he's shipped out of town. I'd be surprised if Jefferson went in either of those directions.

[xTitan]

This message board is going down the toilet. .

Nah. All good input. Sort out what you want.

We'd only be going down the toilet if someone suggested the banger we now need is John Amaechi.

That is undoubtedly the quote of the day..........

[trwi7]

We'd only be going down the toilet if someone suggested the banger we now need is John Amaechi.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

Laugh all you want, but it's getting ridiculous around here. Ten or fifteen people providing "inside info," and almost 100% of it is wrong (partly or entirely). Meanwhile, we have a rule against keeping track of the accuracy of these unauthorized statements. The result is a thread with four unique "insider contributions," with no reference as to who their source is; how they obtained the information; how reliable the source is; why they need anonymity.

Here's an article about the New York Times' efforts to improve their integrity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opini ... ref=slogin

The [new] policy requires that they must have direct knowledge of the information they are imparting; they cannot use the cloak of anonymity for personal or partisan attack; they cannot be used for trivial comment or to make an unremarkable comment seem more important than it is.

Although the purpose of the policy was not explicitly to reduce the number of anonymous sources, Keller said last week, “If you tell the editing system to be more challenging of anonymous sources, it ought to reduce the number.”

While the Times is making progress to beef up their integrity, RealGM is doing the opposite - creating an incentive and rules system designed to lower accuracy, honesty, and integrity. I don't want to hear the "it's just a message board - we don't need to have standards" argument. We have a collection of mostly adults around here, and we should be capable of carrying ourselves more intelligently.

[LISTEN2JAZZ]

If you are asking for people to reveal their sources just to prove to you (an anonymous person) that the information is real, you're going to be holding your breath.

Me an anonymous person? The only way I could be more forthcoming as to my identity is to post my social security number as my signature.

[LUKE23]

Oh be quiet. A big part of this board is entertainment, and if people have "inside info" they want to share, then Bucks nation wants to hear it. If it ends up beings true, then great, if not, then hey we had something to talk about during the slow times, which is right now. You always seem to have a bone to pick with everything, if you don't believe the info then it's very f'ing simple: don't respond to it or acknowledge it.

Good grief.

[xTitan]

Laugh all you want, but it's getting ridiculous around here. Ten or fifteen people providing "inside info," and almost 100% of it is wrong (partly or entirely). Meanwhile, we have a rule against keeping track of the accuracy of these unauthorized statements. The result is a thread with four unique "insider contributions," with no reference as to who their source is; how they obtained the information; how reliable the source is; why they need anonymity.

Here's an article about the New York Times' efforts to improve their integrity:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opini ... ref=slogin

The [new] policy requires that they must have direct knowledge of the information they are imparting; they cannot use the cloak of anonymity for personal or partisan attack; they cannot be used for trivial comment or to make an unremarkable comment seem more important than it is.

Although the purpose of the policy was not explicitly to reduce the number of anonymous sources, Keller said last week, “If you tell the editing system to be more challenging of anonymous sources, it ought to reduce the number.”

While the Times is making progress to beef up their integrity, RealGM is doing the opposite - creating an incentive and rules system designed to lower accuracy, honesty, and integrity. I don't want to hear the "it's just a message board - we don't need to have standards" argument. We have a collection of mostly adults around here, and we should be capable of carrying ourselves more intelligently.

Please put me on ignore...I would much rather read your inane ramblings....tell you what, I'll put you on ignore as well, as I have zero value for anything you write.

[WRau1]

Adam, it's time to bring back the "My Sources" avatar. That thing is AWESOME.

[carmelbrownqueen]

If you don't like what's posted by various individuals then all I can tell you is skip over it. Nobody is forcing you to read anything and you don't have to believe or disbelieve anything. It's really entirely up to you.

[dedned]

more to come?

[paulpressey25]

Adamcz is right about his identity. More people know who he really is than Todd Davis, the CEO of Lifelock.

That said we'll lock this one up until we hear more news on an RJ press conference where we can start a new thread. Adamcz, you can do your accountability report on your home page. We can all then read it there.

[LUKE23]

If you don't like what's posted by various individuals then all I can tell you is skip over it. Nobody is forcing you to read anything and you don't have to believe or disbelieve anything. It's really entirely up to you.

Agreed. I would say the best tactic would be to put the people who have shared "inside info" on ignore, adam. Then you won't be forced to read anything that you don't want to.

I enjoy reading the stuff personally. I don't take it as gospel whatsoever, but it minimum generates discussion. This is an extremely slow part of the Bucks year.