Author Topic: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise  (Read 6980 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #180 on: June 16, 2017, 12:59:54 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2815
  • Tommy Points: 244
So you're just not a fan of players who beat women or do stupid things under the influence of alcohol.  I can understand that.  With such a vehement opposition to such behavior, I assume you also don't care for:
- Robert Parish, who beat his wife over the course of a many years
- Larry Bird, who got into a bar fight during the '85 playoffs


As long as you're consistent, that's cool.  If not...you may want to consider ratcheting down your righteous indignation over Jackson's behavior.

I do not.  I will say, though, that in terms of what happened in '85, since I wasn't around then but love reading about Celtic history, etc., do we actually know what happened, because I thought that those records were sealed and Bird settled out of court or something, but I'm probably wrong.  I also don't believe that Larry was drunk at the time, but, again, I'm probably wrong, as I thought that what went down was the result of his "friend" hitting on someone else's girlfriend, or whatever, right?  Am I doing okay so far, lol? ;D

OK, cool, as long as you're consistent, have fun with the righteous indignation.  Must be tough being a C's fan and having such an intense dislike for Larry Bird.  The way he shut his daughter out must really p--- you off. 

And as far as the bar fight...he was in a bar, so I'm assuming he was drinking, since he readily admitted that he liked to drink and have a good time. And he did have a fight, because he later admitted that it was his fault.  So yeah, we do know what happened, at least enough to know that bad decision making can happen to anyone, and that sometime a lapse of judgement is just a lapse of judgement, and not a sign of pathological problem



Actually, Bird's my favorite player.  Ever.  But that doesn't excuse what happened in 85, even though they weren't going to beat the Lakers that year, anyway, imo, and yes, I do know that he liked to drink and have a good time, and probably still does, lol ;D.

The principal difference, to me, however, is that the bar fight was one such incident during a 13 year career, as far as I know, and while that doesn't make it okay, it was more of a blip on the radar, so to speak, whereas with Jackson has already been involved with the cops three times during one year of college, which, while it might not be a pattern, doesn't look good, to say the least, imo.  I'm sorry for valuing character? ::)
I don't think anyone's buying your holier than thou act.

Jackson is 20 years old and none of us have ever met him. Keep your character judgements to yourself.

What holier than thou act?  These are legitimate concerns, in my view.  Has Ainge not repeatedly stated over the years that he values high character individuals?

Oh yeah, and if you're going to request that I keep such opinions to myself, which you have no right to do, btw, could you at least be bothered to spell judgments correctly? ::)  Thanks ;).
Concerns. Yes.

You don't have nearly enough evidence to condemn his character.

I have no problem with anyone who is very concerned about his character and who wouldn't pick him without a rigorous evaluation process of said character, but the rush to condemn the kid because of his criminal record is unfair to Jackson and strikes me as someone who is trying to make sure they are on the politically correct side before they make sure they are actually correct. Jackson might be an **** misogynist. He might not be. We don't have enough info to make a hard and fast judgement.

And we don't have enough info to dismiss it, either ;). And yeah, that's what I was going for, there, by raising said concerns ::).

He was a 19 year old drunk idiot who kicked a taillight.  Stupid, regretful, but that is all.  People need to get over it.

But that's just the thing - it's not all.

As Roy already pointed out to you, that is all.  Why hate on a 19 year old kid?  I don't get it.

Hey, I understand some of your anger.   Do you not remember being 19 years old?  Do you not remember how some of your friends acted at that age?  The fact is 19 year olds are idiots and do 19 year old idiotic things.  I doesn't mean they are evil or irredeemable.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on adolescent behavior when you know absolutely nothing about my life, and I'm not saying that he's beyond hope, as people can obviously grow and change, but as of right now, I wouldn't pick him.  I'm sorry that I don't buy into your 'boys will be boys' rationale ::).

You ask not to lecture you because I don't know you.  Ok.  But are you are at all aware how frequently you lecture others?  Players, prospects, and other posters who you know absolutely nothing about?  I am far from the only poster who has called you out on this.


I asked you not to lecture me on adolescent behavior, not me as a poster, and when do I lecture others?  I'll admit that I have strong views on a number of topics, yes, but I thought that I was just giving my thoughts on whatever the matter was.  If I have come off as lecturing I sincerely apologize, for that was not, and will never be, my intent. 

The only time I get snarky or whatever is when someone like you attempts to criticize me for whatever and especially from a rather condescending tone, I might add, but can't be bothered to get the facts straight.  In terms of posting style, that's simply not me, unless, of course, I'm responding in kind ;).

You have bragged about and threatened other posters multiple times about reporting other posters (not me) to moderators and successfully getting them suspended or banned because they didn't share your opinions.  No?

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #181 on: June 16, 2017, 01:08:18 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6432
  • Tommy Points: 629
  • Mr. Emoji
So you're just not a fan of players who beat women or do stupid things under the influence of alcohol.  I can understand that.  With such a vehement opposition to such behavior, I assume you also don't care for:
- Robert Parish, who beat his wife over the course of a many years
- Larry Bird, who got into a bar fight during the '85 playoffs


As long as you're consistent, that's cool.  If not...you may want to consider ratcheting down your righteous indignation over Jackson's behavior.

I do not.  I will say, though, that in terms of what happened in '85, since I wasn't around then but love reading about Celtic history, etc., do we actually know what happened, because I thought that those records were sealed and Bird settled out of court or something, but I'm probably wrong.  I also don't believe that Larry was drunk at the time, but, again, I'm probably wrong, as I thought that what went down was the result of his "friend" hitting on someone else's girlfriend, or whatever, right?  Am I doing okay so far, lol? ;D

OK, cool, as long as you're consistent, have fun with the righteous indignation.  Must be tough being a C's fan and having such an intense dislike for Larry Bird.  The way he shut his daughter out must really p--- you off. 

And as far as the bar fight...he was in a bar, so I'm assuming he was drinking, since he readily admitted that he liked to drink and have a good time. And he did have a fight, because he later admitted that it was his fault.  So yeah, we do know what happened, at least enough to know that bad decision making can happen to anyone, and that sometime a lapse of judgement is just a lapse of judgement, and not a sign of pathological problem



Actually, Bird's my favorite player.  Ever.  But that doesn't excuse what happened in 85, even though they weren't going to beat the Lakers that year, anyway, imo, and yes, I do know that he liked to drink and have a good time, and probably still does, lol ;D.

The principal difference, to me, however, is that the bar fight was one such incident during a 13 year career, as far as I know, and while that doesn't make it okay, it was more of a blip on the radar, so to speak, whereas with Jackson has already been involved with the cops three times during one year of college, which, while it might not be a pattern, doesn't look good, to say the least, imo.  I'm sorry for valuing character? ::)
I don't think anyone's buying your holier than thou act.

Jackson is 20 years old and none of us have ever met him. Keep your character judgements to yourself.

What holier than thou act?  These are legitimate concerns, in my view.  Has Ainge not repeatedly stated over the years that he values high character individuals?

Oh yeah, and if you're going to request that I keep such opinions to myself, which you have no right to do, btw, could you at least be bothered to spell judgments correctly? ::)  Thanks ;).
Concerns. Yes.

You don't have nearly enough evidence to condemn his character.

I have no problem with anyone who is very concerned about his character and who wouldn't pick him without a rigorous evaluation process of said character, but the rush to condemn the kid because of his criminal record is unfair to Jackson and strikes me as someone who is trying to make sure they are on the politically correct side before they make sure they are actually correct. Jackson might be an **** misogynist. He might not be. We don't have enough info to make a hard and fast judgement.

And we don't have enough info to dismiss it, either ;). And yeah, that's what I was going for, there, by raising said concerns ::).

He was a 19 year old drunk idiot who kicked a taillight.  Stupid, regretful, but that is all.  People need to get over it.

But that's just the thing - it's not all.

As Roy already pointed out to you, that is all.  Why hate on a 19 year old kid?  I don't get it.

Hey, I understand some of your anger.   Do you not remember being 19 years old?  Do you not remember how some of your friends acted at that age?  The fact is 19 year olds are idiots and do 19 year old idiotic things.  I doesn't mean they are evil or irredeemable.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on adolescent behavior when you know absolutely nothing about my life, and I'm not saying that he's beyond hope, as people can obviously grow and change, but as of right now, I wouldn't pick him.  I'm sorry that I don't buy into your 'boys will be boys' rationale ::).

You ask not to lecture you because I don't know you.  Ok.  But are you are at all aware how frequently you lecture others?  Players, prospects, and other posters who you know absolutely nothing about?  I am far from the only poster who has called you out on this.


I asked you not to lecture me on adolescent behavior, not me as a poster, and when do I lecture others?  I'll admit that I have strong views on a number of topics, yes, but I thought that I was just giving my thoughts on whatever the matter was.  If I have come off as lecturing I sincerely apologize, for that was not, and will never be, my intent. 

The only time I get snarky or whatever is when someone like you attempts to criticize me for whatever and especially from a rather condescending tone, I might add, but can't be bothered to get the facts straight.  In terms of posting style, that's simply not me, unless, of course, I'm responding in kind ;).

You have bragged about and threatened other posters multiple times about reporting other posters (not me) to moderators and successfully getting them suspended or banned because they didn't share your opinions.

Seriously?  I have never "bragged about" reporting other posters, let alone to get them suspended or banned just because we disagreed as if I have some kind of grand agenda, here.  I reported whoever because the kind of language they used, such as name calling, is against the rules, here.  That's it.  You're really completely misreading the entire situation.  I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but when a poster takes it too far per our rules, then yes, I will report them.  You're not allowed to call someone an idiot, for example.  That's it.  You act like I'm somehow baiting whoever into saying something that will get them kicked off the site, which is so wrong that it's not even funny.

And just who are these posters who I have "successfully" gotten banned or suspended?

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #182 on: June 16, 2017, 01:16:29 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2815
  • Tommy Points: 244
So you're just not a fan of players who beat women or do stupid things under the influence of alcohol.  I can understand that.  With such a vehement opposition to such behavior, I assume you also don't care for:
- Robert Parish, who beat his wife over the course of a many years
- Larry Bird, who got into a bar fight during the '85 playoffs


As long as you're consistent, that's cool.  If not...you may want to consider ratcheting down your righteous indignation over Jackson's behavior.

I do not.  I will say, though, that in terms of what happened in '85, since I wasn't around then but love reading about Celtic history, etc., do we actually know what happened, because I thought that those records were sealed and Bird settled out of court or something, but I'm probably wrong.  I also don't believe that Larry was drunk at the time, but, again, I'm probably wrong, as I thought that what went down was the result of his "friend" hitting on someone else's girlfriend, or whatever, right?  Am I doing okay so far, lol? ;D

OK, cool, as long as you're consistent, have fun with the righteous indignation.  Must be tough being a C's fan and having such an intense dislike for Larry Bird.  The way he shut his daughter out must really p--- you off. 

And as far as the bar fight...he was in a bar, so I'm assuming he was drinking, since he readily admitted that he liked to drink and have a good time. And he did have a fight, because he later admitted that it was his fault.  So yeah, we do know what happened, at least enough to know that bad decision making can happen to anyone, and that sometime a lapse of judgement is just a lapse of judgement, and not a sign of pathological problem



Actually, Bird's my favorite player.  Ever.  But that doesn't excuse what happened in 85, even though they weren't going to beat the Lakers that year, anyway, imo, and yes, I do know that he liked to drink and have a good time, and probably still does, lol ;D.

The principal difference, to me, however, is that the bar fight was one such incident during a 13 year career, as far as I know, and while that doesn't make it okay, it was more of a blip on the radar, so to speak, whereas with Jackson has already been involved with the cops three times during one year of college, which, while it might not be a pattern, doesn't look good, to say the least, imo.  I'm sorry for valuing character? ::)
I don't think anyone's buying your holier than thou act.

Jackson is 20 years old and none of us have ever met him. Keep your character judgements to yourself.

What holier than thou act?  These are legitimate concerns, in my view.  Has Ainge not repeatedly stated over the years that he values high character individuals?

Oh yeah, and if you're going to request that I keep such opinions to myself, which you have no right to do, btw, could you at least be bothered to spell judgments correctly? ::)  Thanks ;).
Concerns. Yes.

You don't have nearly enough evidence to condemn his character.

I have no problem with anyone who is very concerned about his character and who wouldn't pick him without a rigorous evaluation process of said character, but the rush to condemn the kid because of his criminal record is unfair to Jackson and strikes me as someone who is trying to make sure they are on the politically correct side before they make sure they are actually correct. Jackson might be an **** misogynist. He might not be. We don't have enough info to make a hard and fast judgement.

And we don't have enough info to dismiss it, either ;). And yeah, that's what I was going for, there, by raising said concerns ::).

He was a 19 year old drunk idiot who kicked a taillight.  Stupid, regretful, but that is all.  People need to get over it.

But that's just the thing - it's not all.

As Roy already pointed out to you, that is all.  Why hate on a 19 year old kid?  I don't get it.

Hey, I understand some of your anger.   Do you not remember being 19 years old?  Do you not remember how some of your friends acted at that age?  The fact is 19 year olds are idiots and do 19 year old idiotic things.  I doesn't mean they are evil or irredeemable.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on adolescent behavior when you know absolutely nothing about my life, and I'm not saying that he's beyond hope, as people can obviously grow and change, but as of right now, I wouldn't pick him.  I'm sorry that I don't buy into your 'boys will be boys' rationale ::).

You ask not to lecture you because I don't know you.  Ok.  But are you are at all aware how frequently you lecture others?  Players, prospects, and other posters who you know absolutely nothing about?  I am far from the only poster who has called you out on this.


I asked you not to lecture me on adolescent behavior, not me as a poster, and when do I lecture others?  I'll admit that I have strong views on a number of topics, yes, but I thought that I was just giving my thoughts on whatever the matter was.  If I have come off as lecturing I sincerely apologize, for that was not, and will never be, my intent. 

The only time I get snarky or whatever is when someone like you attempts to criticize me for whatever and especially from a rather condescending tone, I might add, but can't be bothered to get the facts straight.  In terms of posting style, that's simply not me, unless, of course, I'm responding in kind ;).

You have bragged about and threatened other posters multiple times about reporting other posters (not me) to moderators and successfully getting them suspended or banned because they didn't share your opinions.

Seriously?  I have never "bragged about" reporting other posters, let alone to get them suspended or banned just because we disagreed as if I have some kind of grand agenda, here.  I reported whoever because the kind of language they used, such as name calling, is against the rules, here.  That's it.  You're really completely misreading the entire situation.  I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but when a poster takes it too far per our rules, then yes, I will report them.  You're not allowed to call someone an idiot, for example.  That's it.  You act like I'm somehow baiting whoever into saying something that will get them kicked off the site, which is so wrong that it's not even funny.

And just who are these posters who I have "successfully" gotten banned or suspended?

You did in fact threaten Alldaboston and did tell him you had previously successfully gotten another poster banned. 

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #183 on: June 16, 2017, 01:23:34 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5229
  • Tommy Points: 1160
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction. 
"As far as playing, I didn't care who guarded me - red, yellow, black. I just didn't want a white guy guarding me, because it's disrespect to my game."
-Larry Bird

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #184 on: June 16, 2017, 01:25:50 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2815
  • Tommy Points: 244
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #185 on: June 16, 2017, 01:31:10 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 844
  • Tommy Points: 108
  • Running in the 00s I WANNA BE THE NIGHT
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #186 on: June 16, 2017, 01:33:02 AM »

Offline knuckleballer

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2815
  • Tommy Points: 244
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #187 on: June 16, 2017, 01:48:00 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 844
  • Tommy Points: 108
  • Running in the 00s I WANNA BE THE NIGHT
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.
Lol just hoping for Fultz, signing Hayward would completely kill our cap.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #188 on: June 16, 2017, 01:53:18 AM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15817
  • Tommy Points: 2365
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.
Lol just hoping for Fultz, signing Hayward would completely kill our cap.

If we don't use our cap space on players like Hayward or Griffin then what are we saving it for ?

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #189 on: June 16, 2017, 01:53:55 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 844
  • Tommy Points: 108
  • Running in the 00s I WANNA BE THE NIGHT
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.
Lol just hoping for Fultz, signing Hayward would completely kill our cap.

If we don't use our cap space on players like Hayward or Griffin then what are we saving it for ?
Extending IT and paying Bradley and Smart, tbh not really high on Hayward, I'm willing to sacrifice that much cap for Griffin though

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #190 on: June 16, 2017, 02:01:01 AM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15817
  • Tommy Points: 2365
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.
Lol just hoping for Fultz, signing Hayward would completely kill our cap.

If we don't use our cap space on players like Hayward or Griffin then what are we saving it for ?
Extending IT and paying Bradley and Smart, tbh not really high on Hayward, I'm willing to sacrifice that much cap for Griffin though

We don't need to use cap space to keep our own guys,we are allowed to go over when resigning our own players

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #191 on: June 16, 2017, 02:04:55 AM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2452
  • Tommy Points: 140
Josh hasn't even worked out for the Celtics. He isn't being drafted by us

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #192 on: June 16, 2017, 02:08:06 AM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15817
  • Tommy Points: 2365
Josh hasn't even worked out for the Celtics. He isn't being drafted by us

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #193 on: June 16, 2017, 02:09:42 AM »

Offline Somebody

  • Isaiah Thomas
  • Posts: 844
  • Tommy Points: 108
  • Running in the 00s I WANNA BE THE NIGHT
The hell does this have to do with Josh Jackson? 

Doubt he's taken #1, Fultz seems like the clear prize.  But I also wouldn't be shell-shocked given Ainge's draft history.     

As long as we add another elite prospect in the coming weeks, I'm happy as a clam with our direction.

Sorry for the distraction.  Fultz is going number 1.
Yup, hope we keep him as well.

I'm so excited for him and ... Hayward who I am way to confident will join our team.
Lol just hoping for Fultz, signing Hayward would completely kill our cap.

If we don't use our cap space on players like Hayward or Griffin then what are we saving it for ?
Extending IT and paying Bradley and Smart, tbh not really high on Hayward, I'm willing to sacrifice that much cap for Griffin though

We don't need to use cap space to keep our own guys,we are allowed to go over when resigning our own players
The luxury tax will kill us, it's not so much about the cap.

Re: Rumor: Josh Jackson has a top-3 promise
« Reply #194 on: June 28, 2017, 12:07:04 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6432
  • Tommy Points: 629
  • Mr. Emoji
So you're just not a fan of players who beat women or do stupid things under the influence of alcohol.  I can understand that.  With such a vehement opposition to such behavior, I assume you also don't care for:
- Robert Parish, who beat his wife over the course of a many years
- Larry Bird, who got into a bar fight during the '85 playoffs


As long as you're consistent, that's cool.  If not...you may want to consider ratcheting down your righteous indignation over Jackson's behavior.

I do not.  I will say, though, that in terms of what happened in '85, since I wasn't around then but love reading about Celtic history, etc., do we actually know what happened, because I thought that those records were sealed and Bird settled out of court or something, but I'm probably wrong.  I also don't believe that Larry was drunk at the time, but, again, I'm probably wrong, as I thought that what went down was the result of his "friend" hitting on someone else's girlfriend, or whatever, right?  Am I doing okay so far, lol? ;D

OK, cool, as long as you're consistent, have fun with the righteous indignation.  Must be tough being a C's fan and having such an intense dislike for Larry Bird.  The way he shut his daughter out must really p--- you off. 

And as far as the bar fight...he was in a bar, so I'm assuming he was drinking, since he readily admitted that he liked to drink and have a good time. And he did have a fight, because he later admitted that it was his fault.  So yeah, we do know what happened, at least enough to know that bad decision making can happen to anyone, and that sometime a lapse of judgement is just a lapse of judgement, and not a sign of pathological problem



Actually, Bird's my favorite player.  Ever.  But that doesn't excuse what happened in 85, even though they weren't going to beat the Lakers that year, anyway, imo, and yes, I do know that he liked to drink and have a good time, and probably still does, lol ;D.

The principal difference, to me, however, is that the bar fight was one such incident during a 13 year career, as far as I know, and while that doesn't make it okay, it was more of a blip on the radar, so to speak, whereas with Jackson has already been involved with the cops three times during one year of college, which, while it might not be a pattern, doesn't look good, to say the least, imo.  I'm sorry for valuing character? ::)
I don't think anyone's buying your holier than thou act.

Jackson is 20 years old and none of us have ever met him. Keep your character judgements to yourself.

What holier than thou act?  These are legitimate concerns, in my view.  Has Ainge not repeatedly stated over the years that he values high character individuals?

Oh yeah, and if you're going to request that I keep such opinions to myself, which you have no right to do, btw, could you at least be bothered to spell judgments correctly? ::)  Thanks ;).
Concerns. Yes.

You don't have nearly enough evidence to condemn his character.

I have no problem with anyone who is very concerned about his character and who wouldn't pick him without a rigorous evaluation process of said character, but the rush to condemn the kid because of his criminal record is unfair to Jackson and strikes me as someone who is trying to make sure they are on the politically correct side before they make sure they are actually correct. Jackson might be an **** misogynist. He might not be. We don't have enough info to make a hard and fast judgement.

And we don't have enough info to dismiss it, either ;). And yeah, that's what I was going for, there, by raising said concerns ::).

He was a 19 year old drunk idiot who kicked a taillight.  Stupid, regretful, but that is all.  People need to get over it.

But that's just the thing - it's not all.

As Roy already pointed out to you, that is all.  Why hate on a 19 year old kid?  I don't get it.

Hey, I understand some of your anger.   Do you not remember being 19 years old?  Do you not remember how some of your friends acted at that age?  The fact is 19 year olds are idiots and do 19 year old idiotic things.  I doesn't mean they are evil or irredeemable.

Please don't attempt to lecture me on adolescent behavior when you know absolutely nothing about my life, and I'm not saying that he's beyond hope, as people can obviously grow and change, but as of right now, I wouldn't pick him.  I'm sorry that I don't buy into your 'boys will be boys' rationale ::).

You ask not to lecture you because I don't know you.  Ok.  But are you are at all aware how frequently you lecture others?  Players, prospects, and other posters who you know absolutely nothing about?  I am far from the only poster who has called you out on this.


I asked you not to lecture me on adolescent behavior, not me as a poster, and when do I lecture others?  I'll admit that I have strong views on a number of topics, yes, but I thought that I was just giving my thoughts on whatever the matter was.  If I have come off as lecturing I sincerely apologize, for that was not, and will never be, my intent. 

The only time I get snarky or whatever is when someone like you attempts to criticize me for whatever and especially from a rather condescending tone, I might add, but can't be bothered to get the facts straight.  In terms of posting style, that's simply not me, unless, of course, I'm responding in kind ;).

You have bragged about and threatened other posters multiple times about reporting other posters (not me) to moderators and successfully getting them suspended or banned because they didn't share your opinions.

Seriously?  I have never "bragged about" reporting other posters, let alone to get them suspended or banned just because we disagreed as if I have some kind of grand agenda, here.  I reported whoever because the kind of language they used, such as name calling, is against the rules, here.  That's it.  You're really completely misreading the entire situation.  I don't mind disagreeing with someone, but when a poster takes it too far per our rules, then yes, I will report them.  You're not allowed to call someone an idiot, for example.  That's it.  You act like I'm somehow baiting whoever into saying something that will get them kicked off the site, which is so wrong that it's not even funny.

And just who are these posters who I have "successfully" gotten banned or suspended?

You did in fact threaten Alldaboston and did tell him you had previously successfully gotten another poster banned.

And that's strike three.  If you're interested in what actually went down, which I doubt that you are seeing as how it in no way fits with your fictional version of said events, I'd encourage you to reread this thread from last year, where, again, you completely misinterpreted everything that I had said, but don't let that get in the way of your story ::) -

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=86021.msg2128183#msg2128183