Deng or Green

[St.Nick]

I'm not trying to bait Rev. Clearly he doesn't want to discuss it, and thats his right.

I'm simply making the assumption that nobody wants to get broadsided into reading the personal views of posters regarding abortion when they come to a basketball website. Thats something I had to deal with and others have to deal with when they come here, and it bothers me that one could be so cavalier in their disregard for others by posting an abortion statement in their location. It reminds me of groups posting those disgusting billboards of aborted fetuses on the side of the highway. Completely offensive and in total disregard of people's feelings and the issue in its entirety.

As long as his statement is there for all to read on his profile then the debate continues. If he decides to change it and start an OT thread where people can willingly go to discuss the abortion topic he is so passionate about, then I'm fine with that and will drop the issue.

[St.Nick]

btw, Deng is a better player and a more likely target for your team since Chicago would be willing to ship him quicker than OKC would trade Green. Money shouldn't be an object since you will have a ton of cap room and are less likely to attract top FA signings.

[cpfsf]

Rev hasn't done anything wrong according to the terms of service. This on the other hand is a debate between Green and Deng (at least it was). Furthermore, this isn't even something that is limited to Rev either. I went to one thread on the Knicks board and quickly found these...

signature for Darko Milimutes
"NATIONAL inSECURITY"
with a vast land mass surrounded by two oceans, we are invulnerable to conventional attack
our nuke arsenal can wipe any nation on earth off the map....
and these idiots fret night and day about nations like Iraq and Iran??

signature for R33D33
Luv those Knicks wrote:Nice post.

I'm pretty darn liberal myself and I also would also find it difficult to pull out of Afganistan.


My argument isn’t that it's acceptable because it's done everywhere. I’m saying that none of these signatures are in direct violation with the terms of service. If something offends a user, realgm offers the ability to ignore everything from whatever they find offensive. I go to work, I see house with a Terry Branstad sign. In a few weeks, I will see someone with a Chet Culver sign. Hey, I might even get lucky and see a sign for a candidate I never even heard of. They are allowed to do it. In this case though, you don't even have to see their signs. You can click ignore, and talk about Deng and Green ><

[St.Nick]

One's stance on politics differs GREATLY from one's stance on abortion. Anti-choice activists have a righteous zeal to them which disallows discussion and radicalizes the debate. Politicians represent views, but at the end of the day, they are just a name and some slogans. You can argue with a Republican about gun control without God and baby murder entering the conversation.

It doesn't pack nearly the same punch to see someone write "yay for Obama" or "I miss George Bush" compared to someone that equates abortion to the holocaust.

I'd prefer that people avoid highly charged social and ethical issues in their posts unless its an intelligent debate that respects all sides and stops should it reach the point of causing offense to people's deep beliefs. When that happens, its simply wrong to discuss in a basketball forum. Since abortion is immediately an issue which reahes that point, especially when involving a person of the cloth, its better to just not get started.

I'm pretty sure that almost any sensible, respectful person would agree with this. Thats why I don't like to see someone posting their ethical/religious beliefs in their static location line. Its a shot at anyone that wishes to avoid being reminded of such an issue whenever they come to just discuss b-ball. And they know its a divisive thing to say, too. But with that righteous zeal of theirs they do it anyways. That bugs me, as well.

Feel free to ignore me if you wish, cpfsf. But I don't plan to stop until the issue is resolved. People shouldn't have to deal with someone's ethical agenda at the RealGM basketball board (or quite frankly, anywhere that they don't wish to be engaged).

[jade_hippo]

Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you, I actually kinda agree he probably did put it there to get a reaction, but your argument has a few holes.

Thats why I don't like to see someone posting their ethical/religious beliefs in their static location line. Its a shot at anyone that wishes to avoid being reminded of such an issue whenever they come to just discuss b-ball.

Has he really said what he believes about abortion? It reallly is just a fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you were actually the only one who has tried to bring people to your side of any argument about priestly molesters?

Feel free to ignore me if you wish, cpfsf. But I don't plan to stop until the issue is resolved. People shouldn't have to deal with someone's ethical agenda at the RealGM basketball board (or quite frankly, anywhere that they don't wish to be engaged).

what agenda is that? I don't think I've seen anyone talk about abortion around here in the 2 years I've been reading this forum. Have you tried asking him nicely to change it because it offends you?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My biggest problem with Green is that he's going to expect to be paid soon. I think his numbers are a bit inflated for various reasons and are we really sure he can be a full time SF for us? So do we reallly want to buy into something like him when we don't really know what direction the team is even headed in till Rubio is resolved.

[St.Nick]

Jade Hippo, thanks for the nice reply. Just to address your points:

1) He is stating a fact, but its the same as my stating that Catholic Priests have molested thousands of children. Its pretty clear that its a loaded statement.

2) Its an issue to me. Whether I'm the first one to notice or I'm the first one to say anything due to a poster's fear of rocking the boat, it is still an issue.

I think most people don't debate abortion in here because they come here to get away from serious stuff in their daily lives. When you have to see some guy posting about 1.3M abortions every year then the sanctuary is taken away.

I have probably passed the point of no return, but if it takes my asking nicely for him to remove his statement, then I'll do so.

If that is all it would have taken to make him remove it, then I apologize to him and to the board. But somehow I doubt it would have been enough. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong.

[Basti]

Our whole T-Wolves forum may eventually be contracted and sent to the General Off Topic board if we don't get a top 2 pick

I always wanted to be a mod on the OT board....

good luck on that one. being an honest and decent mod might cause you to become really unpopular there. just ask Rooster. you need a thick skin to mod that board.

[shrink]

One's stance on politics differs GREATLY from one's stance on abortion. Anti-choice activists have a righteous zeal to them which disallows discussion and radicalizes the debate. Politicians represent views, but at the end of the day, they are just a name and some slogans. You can argue with a Republican about gun control without God and baby murder entering the conversation.

It sounds to me with your blanket aspersions that you are also an extremist.

As our mod said, RealGM offers you the choice to ignore a poster if it offends your sensibilities, and they alo give you a specific board to argue if yuou want to. When you post this in a "Deng or Green" thread, it seems like you are the one with an ethical agenda. WE were talking about Deng and Green and the Timberwolves.

[cpfsf]

One's stance on politics differs GREATLY from one's stance on abortion. Anti-choice activists have a righteous zeal to them which disallows discussion and radicalizes the debate. Politicians represent views, but at the end of the day, they are just a name and some slogans. You can argue with a Republican about gun control without God and baby murder entering the conversation.

Yup, every single pro-life activist disallows discussion and radicalize debates. Pro choice activists (or do you prefer to call them anti life activists) on the other hand would never ever do that. It’s the same odds as a Catholic priest being a child rapist (I've been told all of them are).

It doesn't pack nearly the same punch to see someone write "yay for Obama" or "I miss George Bush" compared to someone that equates abortion to the holocaust.

I wasn't really talking about Obama or Bush, I was discussing how it’s completely acceptable to have signatures regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran (among other topics) yet for some reason abortion is taboo. They all deal with very controversial issues. I mean do we invest our resources in Iraq? Could resources be better spent in countries dealing with aids, starvations, and homelessness? What about keeping the resources here to improve the quality of life? Even the debate about Afghanistan is a discussion of life and death right there. I don’t see how abortion is off topic under every circumstance, while discussing life and death oversees isn’t.

I compare this discussion with drivers with bumper stickers. I've seen bumper stickers that say, “Use protection, be pro choice,” and another saying, “The majority of people who had abortions regret it.” In this case it’s like passing the offending car on the shoulder, stopping the car at a green light, and saying now hold on just a moment. We have to discuss this first. The other cars can wait.

I'd prefer that people avoid highly charged social and ethical issues in their posts unless its an intelligent debate that respects all sides and stops should it reach the point of causing offense to people's deep beliefs. When that happens, its simply wrong to discuss in a basketball forum. Since abortion is immediately an issue which reahes that point, especially when involving a person of the cloth, its better to just not get started.

I'm pretty sure that almost any sensible, respectful person would agree with this. Thats why I don't like to see someone posting their ethical/religious beliefs in their static location line. Its a shot at anyone that wishes to avoid being reminded of such an issue whenever they come to just discuss b-ball. And they know its a divisive thing to say, too. But with that righteous zeal of theirs they do it anyways. That bugs me, as well.

Feel free to ignore me if you wish, cpfsf. But I don't plan to stop until the issue is resolved. People shouldn't have to deal with someone's ethical agenda at the RealGM basketball board (or quite frankly, anywhere that they don't wish to be engaged).

In the end people put bumper stickers up that someone could disagree with. People have signatures that people don’t always agree with. People have avatars that might offend someone. Saying that war is cool to talk about and abortion is taboo makes no sense to me. In this case though, you don’t have to be forced into rereading the bumper sticker. In this case though you can press ignore. you can ignore the avatar, ignore the signature, and ignore the person.

I mean my brother served in Iraq. What if he doesn’t want to be reminded of Iraq? We don’t want to risk offending him, so lets just warn anyone who mentions Iraq for the sake of my brother who could be offended.

[St.Nick]

You are confusing the laws of the United States and Real GM.

At Real GM one can be kicked out for speaking freely. In the US, that person is protected.

If I protest on the street with a sign that says, "Priests are child rapists" I won't be stopped by the law.

If within Real GM I decide to put in big bold letters, "Priests are child rapists" in every thread then I'll get banned. If someone puts an abortion statement in their location (which is seen in every post he makes) then somehow he get protection.

Do you see the parallel I'm trying to draw here? Its that Real GM stops people from making OT statements which detract from the discussion of sports within their appropriate forums. If I say that an abortion statement its detracting from my enjoyment of using the RealGM boards some authority should decide whether its more important to allow someone to make an offensive "OT" statement in their location or to protect the purpose of their board.

There has to be consistency or else the integrity of the rules lose meaning.

[C.lupus]

Our whole T-Wolves forum may eventually be contracted and sent to the General Off Topic board if we don't get a top 2 pick

I always wanted to be a mod on the OT board....

good luck on that one. being an honest and decent mod might cause you to become really unpopular there. just ask Rooster. you need a thick skin to mod that board.

I have a thick skin. I should be a mod over there. On the other hand, I don't stay up until 4:00am posting so maybe not.


Back to the original topic (sort of)...Am I the only one who sees Deng's name and automatically thinks LOL Deng?

[cpfsf]

You are confusing the laws of the United States and Real GM.

At Real GM one can be kicked out for speaking freely. In the US, that person is protected.

That’s really misleading. You can be kicked for violating the TOS, not for freely speaking.

If I protest on the street with a sign that says, "Priests are child rapists" I won't be stopped by the law.

If within Real GM I decide to put in big bold letters, "Priests are child rapists" in every thread then I'll get banned. If someone puts an abortion statement in their location (which is seen in every post he makes) then somehow he get protection.

Rev isn’t immune to these rules. Players and coaches have to follow Sterns rules and we have to abide by the TOS. It’s not my rules, not Rev’s rules, and your rules. It’s the rules of whoever owns this site. Rev abides by the same exact rules as you do. There are certain signatures I couldn’t even make.

do see the parallel I'm trying to draw here? Its that Real GM stops people from making OT statements which detract from the discussion of sports within their appropriate forums. If I say that an abortion statement its detracting from my enjoyment of using the RealGM boards some authority should decide whether its more important to allow someone to make an offensive "OT" statement in their location or to protect the purpose of their board.

There has to be consistency or else the integrity of the rules lose meaning.

I don't agree that abortion statistics in signatures should be taboo just because you are offended. If you don't like it, ignore it. Discuss this with a admin or even talk about this on the feedback & suggestions thread. Those are the proper channels. These were rules everybody was aware of when they created an account. I don’t see how a Deng versus Green thread became the place to go. You have taken away my enjoyment by taking your debate on signatures in here.

[St.Nick]

That's exactly my point. Non-basketball related statements belong in non-basketball related areas.

Sucks when you have to look at something completely different than what you were intending to look at, right?

[Esohny]

Yes, why do you always insist on hijacking our threads (and not with anything entertaining)? It sounds like you have a problem with the TOS, which Rev is not violating.

Go lobby whoever has the authority to change the rules, or send Rev a PM about why you're so offended, and quit boring us with this.

[Worm Guts]

Rev's location isn't against the TOS, but trolling is.

[cpfsf]

That's exactly my point. Non-basketball related posts belong in non-basketball related areas.

Sucks when you have to look at something completely different than what you were intending to look at, right?

I'm discussing non basketball related signatures and avatars. Signatures and avatars represent a person. You seem to be St.Nick and not MichaelJordan342332. Rev signature didn't violate the TOS. This thread on the other hand was a debate between Green and Deng.

Realgm has offered a way to ignore posters who offend other posters. In this case your offended by Rev. Again, these were known rules before you agreed to the TOS. Not your rules, not Revs rules, not my rules. If you still have issue with this, discuss it with the admin or in the suggestion and feedback thread.

[younggunsmn]

I am offended by St. Nick's username because I refuse to believe in Santa Claus, and every time I see him post I am reminded of the childhood deceit played upon my poor little innocent soul.

I go here to get away from the lies of the outside world and he has ruined that for me. I am asking him nicely to change his username so I don't have to relive that trauma every time he posts.





Geez dude you have thin skin. Users are allowed to have avatars, signatures, and stuff for making statements about themselves, as long as they maintain common decency. Political statements apply, if someone wants to let others know where they stand they have the right.

If that statistic disturbs you, it should. People turning their minds off whenever they run into a fact that offends their political sensibilities only leads to ignorance, whether you are on the right or the left.

This site has set up rules of conduct and tools for avoiding people and things they say if you want to.
You can use them or you can keep crying about it.

[Klomp]

That's exactly my point. Non-basketball related statements belong in non-basketball related areas.

Sucks when you have to look at something completely different than what you were intending to look at, right?

Have you been on the Wolves board before? Although, you could make the assumption that what the Timberwolves play is not actually basketball....

[Klomp]

For the record, rev's location does not violate RealGM's Terms of Service.

[revprodeji]

Ok, I thought long about this.

I will take neither guy. Green has not shown he can be a true SF in the league and he simply is not long enough for the 4. We would be assuming he can make the move to the 3 and that is risky.

Deng has nice numbers, but crazy high usage and nasty salary.

I would not be interested in either guy.

Oh wait, what are we talking about?