jrodmc wrote:
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.

Copy, yes, I was being sarcastic...I understood what you meant and never took offense.

jrodmc wrote: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?

What? Me stating what I believe in my post was just an example of the situation turned the other way around. If we were not discussing this matter, I would never have typed it, brought it up, or mentioned my beliefs, ever. Likewise, if a fellow atheist started piping up and ranting about their beliefs I'd advise them to close their traps. I'm pushing for everyone's beliefs IN THE WORKPLACE to be kept to themselves. You're at work, do your jobs and leave your opinions about religion, god, and anything else out of it.

jrodmc wrote:No, there haven't been any new dispensations for indescretions, you're confusing 16th century Roman Catholicism with Evangelical Christianity.

Yes, that was another attempt at humor. I usually fail at it, but im aware dispensations were a catholic thing. Let's move on.

jrodmc wrote: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."

Im fully aware he is free to do what he chooses. I could actually care less how many mistresses he has. I was simply pointing out that as a pastor he likely advises others not to do certain things while actively doing those same things. Now, I could care less that he does it however I am free to make a judgement about what type of person would act in such a manner. In my opinion, it's a tad hypocritical. I try to practice what I preach, personally.

jrodmc wrote: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?

I fully understand that if I were admonishing people of faith Id be guilty of pushing my faith on others. Again, I thought I had stated clearly that I would never ever do such a thing and that when I did it in my post I was simply doing it as an example of something I would consider unacceptable in the workplace. Again, everything I am talking about is as it relates to behavior in the workplace.

jrodmc wrote: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?

No, it doesnt seem silly to me at all that a religious person would be offended by that. Again, I firmly believe everyone is free to believe anything they want. If someone wants to go home and pray to an Guacamole Tiki God then have ritualistic sex with their Plasma HDTV Id have no problem with that at all.

If Jackson as coach hears his players speaking in a way that he found offensive then he could and should have made that clear and they should've changed their behavior. That's my point. He's the coach. Essentially a dictator for the players on that team as the ultimate authority. In the same vein, a player cannot necessarily tell the coach what to do so what if a player asked Jackson to stop talking religion? Would he comply? We cannot say. My point again is that setting the ground rules of not bringing religious discussions into the workplace is a good idea.

As for what is acceptable and what isnt acceptable? I cant begin to say. I dont see a problem with a workplace frowning on any sort of religious discussions and I dont see a slippery slope about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Just because we could list a littany of topic which may offend someone somewhere in some workplace to me doesnt mean that we should therefore be OK with a religious or atheist boss admonishing other employees over differing beliefs or whatever.

I dunno. Let's just agree to disagree because I want to go back to keeping my beliefs to myself, it's tiring

Consider that a reflection of both how unified the Warriors are as a team and how strongly they feel about the upper ranks of the league harboring men who think as Sterling does.

Lacob, of course, gave Jackson his first job and hired Welts, the first openly gay executive in professional sports. Talk to the man, as I have, and there's no reason to believe he is prejudiced toward anything other than results that don't meet his lofty expectations.

But anyone able to have frank conversations with NBA players, as I have for more than two decades, knows that a vast majority believe there is an inherent aversion to coaches, administrators and players who are "too black." Whether it's the discomfort of being confronted by a different culture or a fear that it damages the league's marketability to mainstream, corporate (and mostly white) America, those players are convinced that discomfort/fear is behind the league's dress code, uniform and taunting rules and hiring practices.

Whether that belief is merited is the subject of another story; what matters here is only that there are Warriors players who hold it and will watch very closely to compare upper management's treatment of Kerr compared to Jackson this coming season.

The Warriors, collectively, are regarded as a high-character group and are almost certain to give Kerr every chance to show that he is the upgrade over Jackson that Lacob has promised.

- Rick Bucher, Bleacher Report

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Worthy Of The Repost

Forget any personal bias. Forget everything. There is one fundamental question that trumps everything else:

How did the Golden State PLAYERS feel about Mark Jackson?

“That is out of loyalty to Coach Jackson,” said the player. “It has nothing to do with Steve. Just meeting him when he worked our games, he seems like a nice guy. It has to do more with how Coach was done. Guys loved Coach Jackson. They’d run through a wall for him. It hasn’t really set in that he’s gone and someone else has been hired.”

“Coach Jackson changed the culture and this is how you do him?” he said. “If this is your loyalty to Coach, what’s your loyalty to me? I know it raised questions with all of us.”

obviously this player's heart is in the right place but he is not exhibiting critical thinking or nuanced thinking. so while it's nice to know how they FEEL it cannot be at the expense of thinking the situation through and seeing the matter in the round, holistically. maybe if jackson had spent less time in his ministry and more time studying film and working with his assistant coaches there would have been less reason to let him go.

misterearl wrote:CrushAlot - with all due respect to your "take", the GSW players response speaks volumes, and carries more weight.

dkt - critical thinking or nuanced thinking does not win basketball games. Heart wins basketball games.

basketball is 90% mental-- do you know who said that?

misterearl wrote:
dkt - critical thinking or nuanced thinking does not win basketball games. Heart wins basketball games.

Heart? What does that even mean? Can you define it for me? And to say that's the only important factor in winning games? Sorry but that's laughable.

Winning basketball games is due to a confluence of factors and heart may be somewhere in threw Equation depending on how it's defined.

So critical thinking has nothing to do with winning? If you have "heart" you can somehow not worry about thinking or outsmarting your opponent? Don't coaches all the time make adjustments? They don't have to "think" about these changes they just will them with their giant "hearts"?

Just wow.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Worthy Of The Repost

Forget any personal bias. Forget everything. There is one fundamental question that trumps everything else:

How did the Golden State PLAYERS feel about Mark Jackson?

“That is out of loyalty to Coach Jackson,” said the player. “It has nothing to do with Steve. Just meeting him when he worked our games, he seems like a nice guy. It has to do more with how Coach was done. Guys loved Coach Jackson. They’d run through a wall for him. It hasn’t really set in that he’s gone and someone else has been hired.”

“Coach Jackson changed the culture and this is how you do him?” he said. “If this is your loyalty to Coach, what’s your loyalty to me? I know it raised questions with all of us.”

obviously this player's heart is in the right place but he is not exhibiting critical thinking or nuanced thinking. so while it's nice to know how they FEEL it cannot be at the expense of thinking the situation through and seeing the matter in the round, holistically. maybe if jackson had spent less time in his ministry and more time studying film and working with his assistant coaches there would have been less reason to let him go.

I know the warriors wanted mark to move closer to the team but my take regarding why he was let go had more to do with conflicts with management, advisers, and assistant coaches.

People have been talking about his strangely adversarial relationship with his own assistant coaches for a couple of years; last year in an interview with Zach Lowe Jackson went out of his way to explain that Mike Malone had nothing to do with GS improved defense. Then this year you've got the very public firing of Scalabrine, other coaches secretly recording meetings, and talk that Jackson refers to people he doesn't like as "the devil". The whole situation is completely bizarre mostly due to Jackson's behavior.

CrushAlot wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Mark Jackson back to the espn booth

So he is still hireable

Only if you want Phil to fail

H1AND1 wrote:

misterearl wrote:
dkt - critical thinking or nuanced thinking does not win basketball games. Heart wins basketball games.

Heart? What does that even mean? Can you define it for me? And to say that's the only important factor in winning games? Sorry but that's laughable.

Winning basketball games is due to a confluence of factors and heart may be somewhere in threw Equation depending on how it's defined.

So critical thinking has nothing to do with winning? If you have "heart" you can somehow not worry about thinking or outsmarting your opponent? Don't coaches all the time make adjustments? They don't have to "think" about these changes they just will them with their giant "hearts"?

Just wow.

H1AND1 - The Answer Man hereby double... no... triple dog dares you to cut and paste just one scouting report on an NBA prospect that lists "critical thinking" as a criteria to select him in the draft.

Go ahead, make my day.

(sing along) "you gotta have heart, miles and miles of heart..."

misterearl wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

misterearl wrote:
dkt - critical thinking or nuanced thinking does not win basketball games. Heart wins basketball games.

Heart? What does that even mean? Can you define it for me? And to say that's the only important factor in winning games? Sorry but that's laughable.

Winning basketball games is due to a confluence of factors and heart may be somewhere in threw Equation depending on how it's defined.

So critical thinking has nothing to do with winning? If you have "heart" you can somehow not worry about thinking or outsmarting your opponent? Don't coaches all the time make adjustments? They don't have to "think" about these changes they just will them with their giant "hearts"?

Just wow.

H1AND1 - The Answer Man hereby double... no... triple dog dares you to cut and paste just one scouting report on an NBA prospect that lists "critical thinking" as a criteria to select him in the draft.

Go ahead, make my day.

(sing along) "you gotta have heart, miles and miles of heart..."

I'm not going to pour over 1,000's of scouting reports to look for the term "critical thinking" because we both know I won't find it. We both know there aren't any reports that list "critical thinking" however that doesn't prove your point. Nice try.

Ever heard the term BBall IQ? What do you think that means? I've seen low bball IQ listed countless times on scouting reports. You have not? I'm sure there are plenty of other terms on scouting reports that describes in myriad of ways that a player may lack certain mental proclivities that could or maybe might make them a better player when combined with their physical skills.

How about you define "heart" for me. So if player A shoots 54% from the field because he takes "good" shots when he has good looks and Player B shoots 39% because they take horrible I'll advised jumpers is this because Player A has a higher "Heart" Quotient? If a PG has an ability to read lanes and make great passes this is due to his "heart"? Blocking shots?