TeamBall wrote:

misterearl wrote:How many times during the season did you watch Golden State and think, "gee, I wish my team hustled, played defense and shared the ball like that?"

Be honest.

I think most of us wanted their players, not their coach

This is how I felt also. Through out the last two good season for the Warriors I never once said I wish mark Jackson coached us. Would I pick him over Woody? Yes. Would I pick him if I had a choice with other coaches included? No.

Clean - what about coaching defense? All of this talk about the triangle completely ignores the other half of basketball that wins championships.

Did the Warriors defend with passion?

H1AND1 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Glad you bumped this Nalod.

So lets recap:
Mark Jackson got hired as a completely untried, unexperienced head coach for a Bay Area NBA franchise. Near San Francisco. As a supposedly homophobic Christian man. And lasted there a few years and got the team to a level it hadn't been since Rick Barry was playing.

Mark Jackson develops documented issues with members of ownership and the management, but is well-liked by his players.

After bowing out in the 1st round this season, he is summarily fired. No one mentions the personality issues have anything to do with homophobia, which most would agree, if possible, any casual person observing the media today would know the media would sell their own bodily organs to be able to publicize.

Now Mark Jackson, the ex-Knick, ex-NYC native is not a fit for the Knicks because he doesn't happen to morally agree with the sexual preference of homosexuality, for stated religious reasons. I would think most in here would be able to acknowledge that what you prefer to do with your dick is a question of morality. Especially if you feel the need to announce it to the world and label yourself by said preference.

Charlie Ward, John Starks and Alan Houston are all Christians and ex-Knicks and some present/former members of management who would probably hold somewhat the same opinion along the same lines.

Now follow me, here, because I realize many of you post and type words without bothering to even wonder what they actually mean.

Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear, aversion or discrimination against homosexuals. Does Mark Jackson strike you as someone who's afraid, averse or discriminating against homosexuals? Is a man's morality now something he should keep in the closet, in order not to offend those who think their morality is the only one fit for public display? Is morality irrational, unless you leave it in your own home?

There are those of you truly living in a bizarro world where you would actually worry about a person's moral stance costing some shekels to an owner who has had some of the most documented public relations nightmares in the history of the NBA (and seems to enjoy them) and use this angst as your primary reason to keep from endorsing someone for a coaching job. I suppose if he was gay, we'd be waving banners and picking out ties for him to wear on the bench at MSG. Does that strike you as just a bit intolerant and bigoted?

Can the man coach this team? Would he be a hard azz with JR? Would he be able to push Melo? Can he get more out of Tyson? Would he be able to embrace the Dear Triangle and possibly get Shump/Pablo/Toure to run it? What affect would he have on THJr? What kind of talent scout is he?
These are important questions.

rick welts, the warriors team president, is gay. it seems like mark jackson's christian values could not be repressed enough to not cause friction. it was an unhealthy situation on an inter-social, i mean interpersonal, level. you pick a vibe of intolerance and discrimination-- not irrational fear but intolerance-- and it can have consequences. real talk.

yes, morality is irrational because it is based on religion and religious values, not humanism. religion is at heart irrational which is why humanism has supplanted it. what matters is whether one is ethical, that is, behaving in a way that does not harm others. more people have been murdered and slandered in the name of religion than just about any other cause.

mark jackson won't be able to coach in new york unless dolan insists, in which case we are back to the same farce we are trying to get out of.

but can mark jackson coach? some people think that he is basically saying "give it to curry and let things happen." sound familiar? that won't fly in new york under jackson, phil jackson.

Like I stated, then why isn't Rick Welts posting "Jackson the Homophobe" all over the world? Because that's not the issue, obviously. Is Welts christophobic? Is he afraid of alienating the Duck Dynasty crowd in the Bay Area? Consequences would show themselves and not be hidden and covered up in your humanist utopia freak world you're living in. Reality.

Ethical, and where does your "don't harm others come from", might I ask? Your mindless, purposeless, ever evolving DNA? And why do the majority of the population of the earth subscribe to irrational religions, since humanism has supplanted it? What planet are you living on now, Superman?

Pol Pot (communist atheist), Hitler (Darwinist atheist), Stalin (communist atheist) and Chairman Mao (communist atheist) all say hello. Count up those bodies in your atheistic, humanistic utopias and get back to me about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Are you really this idiotic? These are facts that have been available since you were in fourth grade.

Some people? Really? Mark Jackson is being cited in the links you can read on the main page here at the UK as a an excellent coach who led his team to winning records in the vaunted, tough Western conference. The Warriors were cited most of this past season for their defensive prowess. And that with No D-Lee! But it's all about "hand the ball to curry" because 1) you say "some people think", and 2) you're overarching fear of hiring a religiously motivated coach who might not agree with your humanistic, incoherent worldview.

Why don't you try thinking for a little while.

Jrod: Let me preface this with saying that I'm an atheist, just like Pol Pot, etc. I know you're too smart to lump us all into a group whose primary trait in common is genocidal mania so I'll work under the assumuption you were generalizing and using hyperbole to prove a point to DK

Ok, I'm an atheist but I am not anti religion, anti Christian, etc. I am
however, anti fanatic. Any kind of fanatic: religious, political, atheistic (sp?), you name it. Now, I'm not implying Mark Jackson is a fanatic as I don't know the man, but I've seen some troubling stories about how he kept a mistress (I'm assuming he admonished sin and sinning and sinners in his sermons as pastor--unless I missed some new developments in Christian thought and perhaps dispensations for those types of indiscretions are once again being doled out), and further tried to push his beliefs onto others, etc. This, to me, is troubling. Just as I don't push my atheism on others, I would immediately lose respect for anyone in a position of power over me who tried to push their beliefs on me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot abide by that. If it's true Mark Jackson's RELIGION in any way interfered with his job as coach of an NBA team, that is just not acceptable in my opinion.

When a persons religious beliefs begin to spill over into the workplace or even into the media vis a vis their workplace, or they actively try to impose these views on others, I am immediately turned off. I apologize if this is offensive to religious people but I have never once told a Christian or a Jew or an Arab that their deeply held convictions and beliefs are a load of bull**** and that I cannot even fathom how someone in the 21st century could think there's a dude IN THE SKY who gives two flying fuhucks who some bag of chromosomes sticks their ding-a-ling at night, or who wins the Super Bowl

See, that would be a pretty offensive thing to say I would imagine if I said I to a religious persons face. Conversely, if Mark Jackson was my coach and stated ranting about the devil after him, or that he is "praying" for gay married couples, etc etc I would similarly be uncomfortable. That may sound silly but it's true. Implying there is a devil whose gonna roast me indiscriminately for all eternity right next to serial killers and rapists because I don't happen to go to church or pray is offensive, ya know?

TL;DR--Religious? Antireligious? Keep your beliefs to yourself at work.

Preface correct, it's a pretty standard, factual response to the "more people have been murdered in the name of religion" generalizing lumping mantra that gets thrown about blithely by those not willing to actually read history.

Funny, how you can push privatization of Mark Jackson's beliefs, while at the same time expounding on what is acceptable for him with yours. See how interesting that is?
No, there haven't been any new dispensations for indescretions, you're confusing 16th century Roman Catholicism with Evangelical Christianity. Mark Jackson is free to sin just like you or anyone else on the planet. The forgiveness offered by the faith he maintains that he adheres to isn't based on what he does or doesn't do to earn it. It's free. He can't live purely and cleanly enough to earn it, even if he had never kept a mistress or issued hateful statements like "I'm praying for gay couples."

But don't you see, by admonishing those with religious faith that they should keep it to themselves is you pushing your "faith" on others.
You're sorry for saying what you believe on the internet for people of all faiths to read, but we religious people should keep our mouths shut because it makes the irreligious uncomfortable?

It's okay that Jackson's players can emit foul language and talk about ho's and maybe even express their opposing moral views out in the open, even if it makes him uncomfortable. Maybe that seems as silly to you as being upset over the fact that someone is praying to an invisible, non-existent entity seems to me, and how being concerned and uncomfortable that Jackson is concerned about how people spend eternity when those same people don't even believe in indiscriminate roasting in hell is equally silly.

Who gets to determine what should be kept to yourself, and what's acceptable for saying at work? How do you qualify for that position?

jrodmc wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Glad you bumped this Nalod.

So lets recap:
Mark Jackson got hired as a completely untried, unexperienced head coach for a Bay Area NBA franchise. Near San Francisco. As a supposedly homophobic Christian man. And lasted there a few years and got the team to a level it hadn't been since Rick Barry was playing.

Mark Jackson develops documented issues with members of ownership and the management, but is well-liked by his players.

After bowing out in the 1st round this season, he is summarily fired. No one mentions the personality issues have anything to do with homophobia, which most would agree, if possible, any casual person observing the media today would know the media would sell their own bodily organs to be able to publicize.

Now Mark Jackson, the ex-Knick, ex-NYC native is not a fit for the Knicks because he doesn't happen to morally agree with the sexual preference of homosexuality, for stated religious reasons. I would think most in here would be able to acknowledge that what you prefer to do with your dick is a question of morality. Especially if you feel the need to announce it to the world and label yourself by said preference.

Charlie Ward, John Starks and Alan Houston are all Christians and ex-Knicks and some present/former members of management who would probably hold somewhat the same opinion along the same lines.

Now follow me, here, because I realize many of you post and type words without bothering to even wonder what they actually mean.

Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear, aversion or discrimination against homosexuals. Does Mark Jackson strike you as someone who's afraid, averse or discriminating against homosexuals? Is a man's morality now something he should keep in the closet, in order not to offend those who think their morality is the only one fit for public display? Is morality irrational, unless you leave it in your own home?

There are those of you truly living in a bizarro world where you would actually worry about a person's moral stance costing some shekels to an owner who has had some of the most documented public relations nightmares in the history of the NBA (and seems to enjoy them) and use this angst as your primary reason to keep from endorsing someone for a coaching job. I suppose if he was gay, we'd be waving banners and picking out ties for him to wear on the bench at MSG. Does that strike you as just a bit intolerant and bigoted?

Can the man coach this team? Would he be a hard azz with JR? Would he be able to push Melo? Can he get more out of Tyson? Would he be able to embrace the Dear Triangle and possibly get Shump/Pablo/Toure to run it? What affect would he have on THJr? What kind of talent scout is he?
These are important questions.

rick welts, the warriors team president, is gay. it seems like mark jackson's christian values could not be repressed enough to not cause friction. it was an unhealthy situation on an inter-social, i mean interpersonal, level. you pick a vibe of intolerance and discrimination-- not irrational fear but intolerance-- and it can have consequences. real talk.

yes, morality is irrational because it is based on religion and religious values, not humanism. religion is at heart irrational which is why humanism has supplanted it. what matters is whether one is ethical, that is, behaving in a way that does not harm others. more people have been murdered and slandered in the name of religion than just about any other cause.

mark jackson won't be able to coach in new york unless dolan insists, in which case we are back to the same farce we are trying to get out of.

but can mark jackson coach? some people think that he is basically saying "give it to curry and let things happen." sound familiar? that won't fly in new york under jackson, phil jackson.

Like I stated, then why isn't Rick Welts posting "Jackson the Homophobe" all over the world? Because that's not the issue, obviously. Is Welts christophobic? Is he afraid of alienating the Duck Dynasty crowd in the Bay Area? Consequences would show themselves and not be hidden and covered up in your humanist utopia freak world you're living in. Reality.

Ethical, and where does your "don't harm others come from", might I ask? Your mindless, purposeless, ever evolving DNA? And why do the majority of the population of the earth subscribe to irrational religions, since humanism has supplanted it? What planet are you living on now, Superman?

Pol Pot (communist atheist), Hitler (Darwinist atheist), Stalin (communist atheist) and Chairman Mao (communist atheist) all say hello. Count up those bodies in your atheistic, humanistic utopias and get back to me about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Are you really this idiotic? These are facts that have been available since you were in fourth grade.

Some people? Really? Mark Jackson is being cited in the links you can read on the main page here at the UK as a an excellent coach who led his team to winning records in the vaunted, tough Western conference. The Warriors were cited most of this past season for their defensive prowess. And that with No D-Lee! But it's all about "hand the ball to curry" because 1) you say "some people think", and 2) you're overarching fear of hiring a religiously motivated coach who might not agree with your humanistic, incoherent worldview.

Why don't you try thinking for a little while.

Jrod: Let me preface this with saying that I'm an atheist, just like Pol Pot, etc. I know you're too smart to lump us all into a group whose primary trait in common is genocidal mania so I'll work under the assumuption you were generalizing and using hyperbole to prove a point to DK

Ok, I'm an atheist but I am not anti religion, anti Christian, etc. I am
however, anti fanatic. Any kind of fanatic: religious, political, atheistic (sp?), you name it. Now, I'm not implying Mark Jackson is a fanatic as I don't know the man, but I've seen some troubling stories about how he kept a mistress (I'm assuming he admonished sin and sinning and sinners in his sermons as pastor--unless I missed some new developments in Christian thought and perhaps dispensations for those types of indiscretions are once again being doled out), and further tried to push his beliefs onto others, etc. This, to me, is troubling. Just as I don't push my atheism on others, I would immediately lose respect for anyone in a position of power over me who tried to push their beliefs on me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot abide by that. If it's true Mark Jackson's RELIGION in any way interfered with his job as coach of an NBA team, that is just not acceptable in my opinion.

When a persons religious beliefs begin to spill over into the workplace or even into the media vis a vis their workplace, or they actively try to impose these views on others, I am immediately turned off. I apologize if this is offensive to religious people but I have never once told a Christian or a Jew or an Arab that their deeply held convictions and beliefs are a load of bull**** and that I cannot even fathom how someone in the 21st century could think there's a dude IN THE SKY who gives two flying fuhucks who some bag of chromosomes sticks their ding-a-ling at night, or who wins the Super Bowl

See, that would be a pretty offensive thing to say I would imagine if I said I to a religious persons face. Conversely, if Mark Jackson was my coach and stated ranting about the devil after him, or that he is "praying" for gay married couples, etc etc I would similarly be uncomfortable. That may sound silly but it's true. Implying there is a devil whose gonna roast me indiscriminately for all eternity right next to serial killers and rapists because I don't happen to go to church or pray is offensive, ya know?

TL;DR--Religious? Antireligious? Keep your beliefs to yourself at work.

Preface correct, it's a pretty standard, factual response to the "more people have been murdered in the name of religion" generalizing lumping mantra that gets thrown about blithely by those not willing to actually read history.

Funny, how you can push privatization of Mark Jackson's beliefs, while at the same time expounding on what is acceptable for him with yours. See how interesting that is?
No, there haven't been any new dispensations for indescretions, you're confusing 16th century Roman Catholicism with Evangelical Christianity. Mark Jackson is free to sin just like you or anyone else on the planet. The forgiveness offered by the faith he maintains that he adheres to isn't based on what he does or doesn't do to earn it. It's free. He can't live purely and cleanly enough to earn it, even if he had never kept a mistress or issued hateful statements like "I'm praying for gay couples."

But don't you see, by admonishing those with religious faith that they should keep it to themselves is you pushing your "faith" on others.
You're sorry for saying what you believe on the internet for people of all faiths to read, but we religious people should keep our mouths shut because it makes the irreligious uncomfortable?

It's okay that Jackson's players can emit foul language and talk about ho's and maybe even express their opposing moral views out in the open, even if it makes him uncomfortable. Maybe that seems as silly to you as being upset over the fact that someone is praying to an invisible, non-existent entity seems to me, and how being concerned and uncomfortable that Jackson is concerned about how people spend eternity when those same people don't even believe in indiscriminate roasting in hell is equally silly.

Who gets to determine what should be kept to yourself, and what's acceptable for saying at work? How do you qualify for that position?

separation of church and state. leave your religious views out of the workplace please. if you don't approve of the gay lifestyle then don't apply for a job working for a gay person.

freedom of speech. say what you want to say but realize there are going to occasionally be interpersonal consequences.

equal rights. blacks, women, gays. don't be a hypocrite.

a woman's right to choose. separation of church and state. and though separate, the state and the church are NOT equal.

edit: the time is now for the gay, lesbian etc. etc. movement. mark jackson could have been more sensitive to the prevailing views that most americans now embrace and has paid a price for his tactless approach. by going against the tide of history he is being swept away by it. there's nothing personal in that.

misterearl wrote:TeamBall - please speak for yourself. The "most of us" thing is a Fox News device that most of us do not subscribe to.

Clean - what about coaching defense? All of this talk about the triangle completely ignores the other half of basketball that wins championships.

Did the Warriors defend with passion?

I personally don't know how good of a defensive coach Jackson is. For this reason, I can not fault him or give him credit for it. I think a larger sample size is needed to make the determination if the coach is the reason for how good or bad the defense is or if it is the players.

misterearl wrote:What Size Is Sample Size?

"I think a larger sample size is needed to make the determination if the coach is the reason for how good or bad the defense is or if it is the players."

Clean - why should defense be any different from offense?

You get good offensive players, they share the rock and make shots, correct?

It's ALWAYS the players.

Herm Edwards: "Hello?"

I guess we will agree to disagree. In my original post I just wanted to give my opinion on hiring Mark Jackson. I would try to explain my position more thoroughly but I don't think either of us will be changing the other persons mind on this issue. Plus I don't feel like putting too much effort into talking about a team that did not put in much effort last season. This has already been much more time than I wanted to put in. During the offseason I don't post much until draft time, free agent time or training camp time.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:MJax is NY. St John's star, Knicks ROY, Great player for many years. He can do whatever needs to be done.

IF he wants the job, he should call PJax and tell him what he wants to hear. He will being pride, Defense and NY back to the Knicks.

Fisher is my 2nd choice.

I wouldn't mind MJax or Fisher. But in Phils eyes, he would prefer a young rookie coach like Fisher, to personally groom into being the next Phil Jackson. It's a low risk for Phil vs MJax, theirs no prior relationship history, so the risk factor to succeed is much higher. JVG or any other high profile coach is also a risk. Phil is trying to set up his structure to be a GM / coach. So he needs a young rookie coach that doesn't mind his micro management style. That's why Kerr, Fisher, Pippen, etc....are on his list of coaching options.

Otherwise, JVG with Mark Jackson as the assistant would've been signed already! And personally, that's a great combination....It could possibly bring back Ewing and some of the old 90's Knick players. Sounds like a good story, if Pat Riley was still the President / GM. With Phil, all he has are old Laker players / coaches to choose from. I doubt he brings anybody from the Chicago bulls era like Pippen. Too much bad blood between Bulls and Knicks....The only exception is if JVG is willing to be micro managed by Phil.

Derek Fisher is the best puppet for Phil!

misterearl wrote:Queens NY

Three years experience. Built great chemistry with his team.

51 wins without his starting center. Took a dominant team to seven games.

Old school enough to appreciate the legends of the game and handle veteran egos. New school enough to manage yutes.

Tough guy. Proven winner.

I don't see any system when I watch GS play and a bigger issue is they couldn't get a damn stop whenever they needed one against the Clippers. All they relied on was their offense --- there was no defensive presence and this was the playoffs.

smackeddog wrote:

blkexec wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:MJax is NY. St John's star, Knicks ROY, Great player for many years. He can do whatever needs to be done.

IF he wants the job, he should call PJax and tell him what he wants to hear. He will being pride, Defense and NY back to the Knicks.

Fisher is my 2nd choice.

I wouldn't mind MJax or Fisher. But in Phils eyes, he would prefer a young rookie coach like Fisher, to personally groom into being the next Phil Jackson. It's a low risk for Phil vs MJax, theirs no prior relationship history, so the risk factor to succeed is much higher. JVG or any other high profile coach is also a risk. Phil is trying to set up his structure to be a GM / coach. So he needs a young rookie coach that doesn't mind his micro management style. That's why Kerr, Fisher, Pippen, etc....are on his list of coaching options.

Otherwise, JVG with Mark Jackson as the assistant would've been signed already! And personally, that's a great combination....It could possibly bring back Ewing and some of the old 90's Knick players. Sounds like a good story, if Pat Riley was still the President / GM. With Phil, all he has are old Laker players / coaches to choose from. I doubt he brings anybody from the Chicago bulls era like Pippen. Too much bad blood between Bulls and Knicks....The only exception is if JVG is willing to be micro managed by Phil.

Derek Fisher is the best puppet for Phil!

Again Phil is in a no win situation with the media. If he hires a young, close ally the story will be that they are his puppet, if he hires a veteran coach from out of his circle the story will be Phil and x at war.

Phil will put the media clowns in their place

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Glad you bumped this Nalod.

So lets recap:
Mark Jackson got hired as a completely untried, unexperienced head coach for a Bay Area NBA franchise. Near San Francisco. As a supposedly homophobic Christian man. And lasted there a few years and got the team to a level it hadn't been since Rick Barry was playing.

Mark Jackson develops documented issues with members of ownership and the management, but is well-liked by his players.

After bowing out in the 1st round this season, he is summarily fired. No one mentions the personality issues have anything to do with homophobia, which most would agree, if possible, any casual person observing the media today would know the media would sell their own bodily organs to be able to publicize.

Now Mark Jackson, the ex-Knick, ex-NYC native is not a fit for the Knicks because he doesn't happen to morally agree with the sexual preference of homosexuality, for stated religious reasons. I would think most in here would be able to acknowledge that what you prefer to do with your dick is a question of morality. Especially if you feel the need to announce it to the world and label yourself by said preference.

Charlie Ward, John Starks and Alan Houston are all Christians and ex-Knicks and some present/former members of management who would probably hold somewhat the same opinion along the same lines.

Now follow me, here, because I realize many of you post and type words without bothering to even wonder what they actually mean.

Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear, aversion or discrimination against homosexuals. Does Mark Jackson strike you as someone who's afraid, averse or discriminating against homosexuals? Is a man's morality now something he should keep in the closet, in order not to offend those who think their morality is the only one fit for public display? Is morality irrational, unless you leave it in your own home?

There are those of you truly living in a bizarro world where you would actually worry about a person's moral stance costing some shekels to an owner who has had some of the most documented public relations nightmares in the history of the NBA (and seems to enjoy them) and use this angst as your primary reason to keep from endorsing someone for a coaching job. I suppose if he was gay, we'd be waving banners and picking out ties for him to wear on the bench at MSG. Does that strike you as just a bit intolerant and bigoted?

Can the man coach this team? Would he be a hard azz with JR? Would he be able to push Melo? Can he get more out of Tyson? Would he be able to embrace the Dear Triangle and possibly get Shump/Pablo/Toure to run it? What affect would he have on THJr? What kind of talent scout is he?
These are important questions.

rick welts, the warriors team president, is gay. it seems like mark jackson's christian values could not be repressed enough to not cause friction. it was an unhealthy situation on an inter-social, i mean interpersonal, level. you pick a vibe of intolerance and discrimination-- not irrational fear but intolerance-- and it can have consequences. real talk.

yes, morality is irrational because it is based on religion and religious values, not humanism. religion is at heart irrational which is why humanism has supplanted it. what matters is whether one is ethical, that is, behaving in a way that does not harm others. more people have been murdered and slandered in the name of religion than just about any other cause.

mark jackson won't be able to coach in new york unless dolan insists, in which case we are back to the same farce we are trying to get out of.

but can mark jackson coach? some people think that he is basically saying "give it to curry and let things happen." sound familiar? that won't fly in new york under jackson, phil jackson.

Like I stated, then why isn't Rick Welts posting "Jackson the Homophobe" all over the world? Because that's not the issue, obviously. Is Welts christophobic? Is he afraid of alienating the Duck Dynasty crowd in the Bay Area? Consequences would show themselves and not be hidden and covered up in your humanist utopia freak world you're living in. Reality.

Ethical, and where does your "don't harm others come from", might I ask? Your mindless, purposeless, ever evolving DNA? And why do the majority of the population of the earth subscribe to irrational religions, since humanism has supplanted it? What planet are you living on now, Superman?

Pol Pot (communist atheist), Hitler (Darwinist atheist), Stalin (communist atheist) and Chairman Mao (communist atheist) all say hello. Count up those bodies in your atheistic, humanistic utopias and get back to me about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Are you really this idiotic? These are facts that have been available since you were in fourth grade.

Some people? Really? Mark Jackson is being cited in the links you can read on the main page here at the UK as a an excellent coach who led his team to winning records in the vaunted, tough Western conference. The Warriors were cited most of this past season for their defensive prowess. And that with No D-Lee! But it's all about "hand the ball to curry" because 1) you say "some people think", and 2) you're overarching fear of hiring a religiously motivated coach who might not agree with your humanistic, incoherent worldview.

Why don't you try thinking for a little while.

Jrod: Let me preface this with saying that I'm an atheist, just like Pol Pot, etc. I know you're too smart to lump us all into a group whose primary trait in common is genocidal mania so I'll work under the assumuption you were generalizing and using hyperbole to prove a point to DK

Ok, I'm an atheist but I am not anti religion, anti Christian, etc. I am
however, anti fanatic. Any kind of fanatic: religious, political, atheistic (sp?), you name it. Now, I'm not implying Mark Jackson is a fanatic as I don't know the man, but I've seen some troubling stories about how he kept a mistress (I'm assuming he admonished sin and sinning and sinners in his sermons as pastor--unless I missed some new developments in Christian thought and perhaps dispensations for those types of indiscretions are once again being doled out), and further tried to push his beliefs onto others, etc. This, to me, is troubling. Just as I don't push my atheism on others, I would immediately lose respect for anyone in a position of power over me who tried to push their beliefs on me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot abide by that. If it's true Mark Jackson's RELIGION in any way interfered with his job as coach of an NBA team, that is just not acceptable in my opinion.

When a persons religious beliefs begin to spill over into the workplace or even into the media vis a vis their workplace, or they actively try to impose these views on others, I am immediately turned off. I apologize if this is offensive to religious people but I have never once told a Christian or a Jew or an Arab that their deeply held convictions and beliefs are a load of bull**** and that I cannot even fathom how someone in the 21st century could think there's a dude IN THE SKY who gives two flying fuhucks who some bag of chromosomes sticks their ding-a-ling at night, or who wins the Super Bowl

See, that would be a pretty offensive thing to say I would imagine if I said I to a religious persons face. Conversely, if Mark Jackson was my coach and stated ranting about the devil after him, or that he is "praying" for gay married couples, etc etc I would similarly be uncomfortable. That may sound silly but it's true. Implying there is a devil whose gonna roast me indiscriminately for all eternity right next to serial killers and rapists because I don't happen to go to church or pray is offensive, ya know?

TL;DR--Religious? Antireligious? Keep your beliefs to yourself at work.

Preface correct, it's a pretty standard, factual response to the "more people have been murdered in the name of religion" generalizing lumping mantra that gets thrown about blithely by those not willing to actually read history.

Funny, how you can push privatization of Mark Jackson's beliefs, while at the same time expounding on what is acceptable for him with yours. See how interesting that is?
No, there haven't been any new dispensations for indescretions, you're confusing 16th century Roman Catholicism with Evangelical Christianity. Mark Jackson is free to sin just like you or anyone else on the planet. The forgiveness offered by the faith he maintains that he adheres to isn't based on what he does or doesn't do to earn it. It's free. He can't live purely and cleanly enough to earn it, even if he had never kept a mistress or issued hateful statements like "I'm praying for gay couples."

But don't you see, by admonishing those with religious faith that they should keep it to themselves is you pushing your "faith" on others.
You're sorry for saying what you believe on the internet for people of all faiths to read, but we religious people should keep our mouths shut because it makes the irreligious uncomfortable?

It's okay that Jackson's players can emit foul language and talk about ho's and maybe even express their opposing moral views out in the open, even if it makes him uncomfortable. Maybe that seems as silly to you as being upset over the fact that someone is praying to an invisible, non-existent entity seems to me, and how being concerned and uncomfortable that Jackson is concerned about how people spend eternity when those same people don't even believe in indiscriminate roasting in hell is equally silly.

Who gets to determine what should be kept to yourself, and what's acceptable for saying at work? How do you qualify for that position?

separation of church and state. leave your religious views out of the workplace please. if you don't approve of the gay lifestyle then don't apply for a job working for a gay person.

freedom of speech. say what you want to say but realize there are going to occasionally be interpersonal consequences.

equal rights. blacks, women, gays. don't be a hypocrite.

a woman's right to choose. separation of church and state. and though separate, the state and the church are NOT equal.

edit: the time is now for the gay, lesbian etc. etc. movement. mark jackson could have been more sensitive to the prevailing views that most americans now embrace and has paid a price for his tactless approach. by going against the tide of history he is being swept away by it. there's nothing personal in that.

Please show me where the establishment clause of the constitution says "separation of church and state". Do you even know where that came from?

When did the "workplace" become the "state", comrade?

Freedom of speech, unless it goes against prevailing views. Then you should just shut up. Good thing you weren't a freedom marcher in the Deep South in the 60's, huh?

Equal rights includes religious freedom, don't be a moron.

Don't look now, but your precious right to choose is being trumped slowly by the precedents being ruled upon for violence against the unborn. Can't have it both ways; it's either a baby or a glob of cells without rights.

Most Americans once embraced slavery, eugenics and at one time there were over 300 US associations in the 1930's supporting the Nazis. Be careful what historical tide you decide to swim in.

smackeddog wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Glad you bumped this Nalod.

So lets recap:
Mark Jackson got hired as a completely untried, unexperienced head coach for a Bay Area NBA franchise. Near San Francisco. As a supposedly homophobic Christian man. And lasted there a few years and got the team to a level it hadn't been since Rick Barry was playing.

Mark Jackson develops documented issues with members of ownership and the management, but is well-liked by his players.

After bowing out in the 1st round this season, he is summarily fired. No one mentions the personality issues have anything to do with homophobia, which most would agree, if possible, any casual person observing the media today would know the media would sell their own bodily organs to be able to publicize.

Now Mark Jackson, the ex-Knick, ex-NYC native is not a fit for the Knicks because he doesn't happen to morally agree with the sexual preference of homosexuality, for stated religious reasons. I would think most in here would be able to acknowledge that what you prefer to do with your dick is a question of morality. Especially if you feel the need to announce it to the world and label yourself by said preference.

Charlie Ward, John Starks and Alan Houston are all Christians and ex-Knicks and some present/former members of management who would probably hold somewhat the same opinion along the same lines.

Now follow me, here, because I realize many of you post and type words without bothering to even wonder what they actually mean.

Homophobia is defined as an irrational fear, aversion or discrimination against homosexuals. Does Mark Jackson strike you as someone who's afraid, averse or discriminating against homosexuals? Is a man's morality now something he should keep in the closet, in order not to offend those who think their morality is the only one fit for public display? Is morality irrational, unless you leave it in your own home?

There are those of you truly living in a bizarro world where you would actually worry about a person's moral stance costing some shekels to an owner who has had some of the most documented public relations nightmares in the history of the NBA (and seems to enjoy them) and use this angst as your primary reason to keep from endorsing someone for a coaching job. I suppose if he was gay, we'd be waving banners and picking out ties for him to wear on the bench at MSG. Does that strike you as just a bit intolerant and bigoted?

Can the man coach this team? Would he be a hard azz with JR? Would he be able to push Melo? Can he get more out of Tyson? Would he be able to embrace the Dear Triangle and possibly get Shump/Pablo/Toure to run it? What affect would he have on THJr? What kind of talent scout is he?
These are important questions.

rick welts, the warriors team president, is gay. it seems like mark jackson's christian values could not be repressed enough to not cause friction. it was an unhealthy situation on an inter-social, i mean interpersonal, level. you pick a vibe of intolerance and discrimination-- not irrational fear but intolerance-- and it can have consequences. real talk.

yes, morality is irrational because it is based on religion and religious values, not humanism. religion is at heart irrational which is why humanism has supplanted it. what matters is whether one is ethical, that is, behaving in a way that does not harm others. more people have been murdered and slandered in the name of religion than just about any other cause.

mark jackson won't be able to coach in new york unless dolan insists, in which case we are back to the same farce we are trying to get out of.

but can mark jackson coach? some people think that he is basically saying "give it to curry and let things happen." sound familiar? that won't fly in new york under jackson, phil jackson.

Like I stated, then why isn't Rick Welts posting "Jackson the Homophobe" all over the world? Because that's not the issue, obviously. Is Welts christophobic? Is he afraid of alienating the Duck Dynasty crowd in the Bay Area? Consequences would show themselves and not be hidden and covered up in your humanist utopia freak world you're living in. Reality.

Ethical, and where does your "don't harm others come from", might I ask? Your mindless, purposeless, ever evolving DNA? And why do the majority of the population of the earth subscribe to irrational religions, since humanism has supplanted it? What planet are you living on now, Superman?

Pol Pot (communist atheist), Hitler (Darwinist atheist), Stalin (communist atheist) and Chairman Mao (communist atheist) all say hello. Count up those bodies in your atheistic, humanistic utopias and get back to me about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch Trials. Are you really this idiotic? These are facts that have been available since you were in fourth grade.

Some people? Really? Mark Jackson is being cited in the links you can read on the main page here at the UK as a an excellent coach who led his team to winning records in the vaunted, tough Western conference. The Warriors were cited most of this past season for their defensive prowess. And that with No D-Lee! But it's all about "hand the ball to curry" because 1) you say "some people think", and 2) you're overarching fear of hiring a religiously motivated coach who might not agree with your humanistic, incoherent worldview.

Why don't you try thinking for a little while.

Jrod: Let me preface this with saying that I'm an atheist, just like Pol Pot, etc. I know you're too smart to lump us all into a group whose primary trait in common is genocidal mania so I'll work under the assumuption you were generalizing and using hyperbole to prove a point to DK

Ok, I'm an atheist but I am not anti religion, anti Christian, etc. I am
however, anti fanatic. Any kind of fanatic: religious, political, atheistic (sp?), you name it. Now, I'm not implying Mark Jackson is a fanatic as I don't know the man, but I've seen some troubling stories about how he kept a mistress (I'm assuming he admonished sin and sinning and sinners in his sermons as pastor--unless I missed some new developments in Christian thought and perhaps dispensations for those types of indiscretions are once again being doled out), and further tried to push his beliefs onto others, etc. This, to me, is troubling. Just as I don't push my atheism on others, I would immediately lose respect for anyone in a position of power over me who tried to push their beliefs on me. I'm sorry, but I just cannot abide by that. If it's true Mark Jackson's RELIGION in any way interfered with his job as coach of an NBA team, that is just not acceptable in my opinion.

When a persons religious beliefs begin to spill over into the workplace or even into the media vis a vis their workplace, or they actively try to impose these views on others, I am immediately turned off. I apologize if this is offensive to religious people but I have never once told a Christian or a Jew or an Arab that their deeply held convictions and beliefs are a load of bull**** and that I cannot even fathom how someone in the 21st century could think there's a dude IN THE SKY who gives two flying fuhucks who some bag of chromosomes sticks their ding-a-ling at night, or who wins the Super Bowl

See, that would be a pretty offensive thing to say I would imagine if I said I to a religious persons face. Conversely, if Mark Jackson was my coach and stated ranting about the devil after him, or that he is "praying" for gay married couples, etc etc I would similarly be uncomfortable. That may sound silly but it's true. Implying there is a devil whose gonna roast me indiscriminately for all eternity right next to serial killers and rapists because I don't happen to go to church or pray is offensive, ya know?

TL;DR--Religious? Antireligious? Keep your beliefs to yourself at work.

Preface correct, it's a pretty standard, factual response to the "more people have been murdered in the name of religion" generalizing lumping mantra that gets thrown about blithely by those not willing to actually read history.

Funny, how you can push privatization of Mark Jackson's beliefs, while at the same time expounding on what is acceptable for him with yours. See how interesting that is?
No, there haven't been any new dispensations for indescretions, you're confusing 16th century Roman Catholicism with Evangelical Christianity. Mark Jackson is free to sin just like you or anyone else on the planet. The forgiveness offered by the faith he maintains that he adheres to isn't based on what he does or doesn't do to earn it. It's free. He can't live purely and cleanly enough to earn it, even if he had never kept a mistress or issued hateful statements like "I'm praying for gay couples."

But don't you see, by admonishing those with religious faith that they should keep it to themselves is you pushing your "faith" on others.
You're sorry for saying what you believe on the internet for people of all faiths to read, but we religious people should keep our mouths shut because it makes the irreligious uncomfortable?

It's okay that Jackson's players can emit foul language and talk about ho's and maybe even express their opposing moral views out in the open, even if it makes him uncomfortable. Maybe that seems as silly to you as being upset over the fact that someone is praying to an invisible, non-existent entity seems to me, and how being concerned and uncomfortable that Jackson is concerned about how people spend eternity when those same people don't even believe in indiscriminate roasting in hell is equally silly.

Who gets to determine what should be kept to yourself, and what's acceptable for saying at work? How do you qualify for that position?

separation of church and state. leave your religious views out of the workplace please. if you don't approve of the gay lifestyle then don't apply for a job working for a gay person.

freedom of speech. say what you want to say but realize there are going to occasionally be interpersonal consequences.

equal rights. blacks, women, gays. don't be a hypocrite.

a woman's right to choose. separation of church and state. and though separate, the state and the church are NOT equal.

edit: the time is now for the gay, lesbian etc. etc. movement. mark jackson could have been more sensitive to the prevailing views that most americans now embrace and has paid a price for his tactless approach. by going against the tide of history he is being swept away by it. there's nothing personal in that.

Please show me where the establishment clause of the constitution says "separation of church and state". Do you even know where that came from?

When did the "workplace" become the "state", comrade?

Freedom of speech, unless it goes against prevailing views. Then you should just shut up. Good thing you weren't a freedom marcher in the Deep South in the 60's, huh?

Equal rights includes religious freedom, don't be a moron.

Don't look now, but your precious right to choose is being trumped slowly by the precedents being ruled upon for violence against the unborn. Can't have it both ways; it's either a baby or a glob of cells without rights.

Most Americans once embraced slavery, eugenics and at one time there were over 300 US associations in the 1930's supporting the Nazis. Be careful what historical tide you decide to swim in.

What's gotten into you lately? I don't remember you being so quick to lay on the insults until a couple of months/weeks ago.

Missing the playoffs. Sorry, I'll get off the rag.

I'm actually trying to be nice about this.