dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

If you strike it rich, you are a "winner" in a sense. Pulling a lever on a slot machine and hitting the jackpot makes you a "winner"

Being successful makes you a "winner" but of course it does not make you a winner if everything.

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Yeah you said it was a Metta issue. You also linked to a thread where you apparently felt you were called an ignorant @sshole by another poster. This isn't the the place/thread to seek your revenge. Societal issues are bigger than 'inferred' slights from other posters.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:Actually, she could've been wearing a bug but she seems like an airhead and so I can't see her being that saavy. You might be right about it being an in-person conversation though. Either way, she's probably just a side chick. Why even bother talking to her on such a personal level? He should've had multiple irons in the fire, for when she started acting up, he could cut her loose. With his money, he could outright buy "love".

Wouldn't have been the first time:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/nba-owner-sex-scandal?page=1

I didn't even know about this. Either way, I'm hoping he gets screwed. It'd be great if we became the primary beneficiaries of him getting screwed.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Yeah you said it was a Metta issue. You also linked to a thread where you apparently felt you were called an ignorant @sshole by another poster. This isn't the the place/thread to seek your revenge. Societal issues are bigger than 'inferred' slights from other posters.

hey inspector javert give it a rest. you continue to reduce it to it somehow being personal. i purposely left the issue of being called an ignorant ******* as a separate issue or did you not notice that it began with "also" at the beginning of a separate paragraph? and since when does being called an ignorant ******* somehow reduced to my "apparently feeling" that i was called an ignorant *******?

bottom line sterling is a racist ******* and he must be punished. are racist *******s winners, crushalot?

i am predicting that you will not answer the question.

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Winning is a pretty broad term though. These owners set out to make money and they're achieving that goal. In that sense, they won. If you want to talk about happiness though then thats a completely different issue.

the purpose of sport is to win, to be victorious-- entertaining an audience who pays money to see you compete and hopefully win... is an utterly accidental condition. if you make money in the process of owning a team that wins then you are a money making winner. if not, then you are merely making money and not a winner. if you are a miserable racist ******* who is making money you are not a winner.

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Yeah you said it was a Metta issue. You also linked to a thread where you apparently felt you were called an ignorant @sshole by another poster. This isn't the the place/thread to seek your revenge. Societal issues are bigger than 'inferred' slights from other posters.

hey inspector javert give it a rest. you continue to reduce it to it somehow being personal. i purposely left the issue of being called an ignorant ******* as a separate issue or did you not notice that it began with "also" at the beginning of a separate paragraph? and since when does being called an ignorant ******* somehow reduced to my "apparently feeling" that i was called an ignorant *******?

bottom line sterling is a racist ******* and he must be punished. are racist *******s winners, crushalot?

i am predicting that you will not answer the question.

NardDogNation wrote:

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Winning is a pretty broad term though. These owners set out to make money and they're achieving that goal. In that sense, they won. If you want to talk about happiness though then thats a completely different issue.

It's difficult to say that James Dolan "is winning". To win, there needs to be a personal effort. Being born to a billionaire daddy that gifts-wrap you a team doesn't qualify IMO. The only reason Dolan's dad even gave him the team is because James was ****ing up Cablevision and Charles wanted to protect his nest-egg (according to Wikipedia).

But yeah when you put it all together that's just like 3 things. He didn't exactly work to acquire the Knicks franchise so I see your point.

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Winning is a pretty broad term though. These owners set out to make money and they're achieving that goal. In that sense, they won. If you want to talk about happiness though then thats a completely different issue.

the purpose of sport is to win, to be victorious-- entertaining an audience who pays money to see you compete and hopefully win... is an utterly accidental condition. if you make money in the process of owning a team that wins then you are a money making winner. if not, then you are merely making money and not a winner. if you are a miserable racist ******* who is making money you are not a winner.

Making money is the root of this whole thing. We have an owner who was never really committed to winning and did what he could to just make money and the Knicks still are up there in attendance. I'm not saying that everyone is just in it for the money but everyone wants to make the money first.

I do however believe that most owners know they have to put a product on the floor than can attract fans to attend, buy merchandise and such.

Swishfm3 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Andrew wrote:

dk7th wrote:he's a total lowlife. but because he has a sh!t-ton of money some people on this board will say that he is a winner. just sayin'

Who will say it? Have people said that? If not you have some explaining to do.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=47384&page=4

Please stop with your obviously silly and purposefully aimed comments in order to create something out of nothing. It's getting tiresome and i believe Martin already asked you once.

andrew-- i am not wrong when i say that having boatloads of money does not necessarily equate to winning and success... am i? doesn't the example of sterling bring this fallacy of equating money with winning and success into sharp focus? in fact i think sterling, like dolan, is a miserable person. don't you? i mean nothing inflammatory by asking these questions, but it occurs to me that when a poster asserts the opposite of what i am saying that we have a terrific teachable moment here.

also, is it okay with you that i am being referred to as an ignorant *******? is this not silly and inflammatory?

Can you put the pieces together for me? This a thread about racism and Donald Sterling. Did someone call you an ignorant @sshole in this thread? This is a societal issue no? Seems from a distance like you are trying to settle a personal score. Not the place or time in my opinion. If I am wrong I apologize.

no this has been a meta-issue for a long while, that is, equating money with success and winning. we as knick fans have argued about dolan and his billions. i have maintained that he is a loser no matter how much money he has. the subject has also occasionally bled over to the merits of pursuing money to the exclusion of sacrificing money in order to win something valuable, ie a title, a ring-- i am referring to carmelo of course.

now here we have a despicable billionaire racist lowlife and i am wondering if this equating of money with success and winning really holds up?

I think this goes back to a thread where you feel you were put down by Papa as Guns suggested. Seems a bit small to turn a thread about racism into a chance to get back at another poster. There is a much bigger issue here and it appears you are trying to mask your anti papa agenda. Wrong place wrong time in my opinion.

i just said that this is a meta-issue. i say that money does not equate with winning. is sterling for all his money a winner? it's a philosophical issue that traces itself back to "the republic" of plato. the issue there was whether all power possessors were happy. those that were unjust, ie tyrants, no matter their power or wealth, were miserable and unhappy. those that were just, ie philosopher-kings, happy.

i see this modern issue of equating money with winning as echoing this age-old issue. it means a great deal to me, it has been a focus of mine for many years, and i ask that you respect that and not attempt to belittle me or dismiss this as a legitimate subject by trying to assert that it is either petty or personal.

Yeah you said it was a Metta issue. You also linked to a thread where you apparently felt you were called an ignorant @sshole by another poster. This isn't the the place/thread to seek your revenge. Societal issues are bigger than 'inferred' slights from other posters.

hey inspector javert give it a rest. you continue to reduce it to it somehow being personal. i purposely left the issue of being called an ignorant ******* as a separate issue or did you not notice that it began with "also" at the beginning of a separate paragraph? and since when does being called an ignorant ******* somehow reduced to my "apparently feeling" that i was called an ignorant *******?

bottom line sterling is a racist ******* and he must be punished. are racist *******s winners, crushalot?

i am predicting that you will not answer the question.

What have I ever posted that would suggest that I think racists are winners? I think you should check yourself. This isn't a thread about avenging perceived slights or trying to trap another poster.

Disappointed in you Crush....You fell victim to Dk7th okie doke.

every time Dk7th is trapped in a corner, he flips the discussion by throwing a bunch of questions to whomever he is "debating" with...hence, changing the topic of discussion

In this case...he asked, "are racist *******s winners, crushalot?" and followed it with "i am predicting that you will not answer the question."

What th

CrushAlot wrote:Back to the issues. Simmon's called it. Sterling has a long timeline of racist behavior that the nba was aware of but did not address. To address it now after an appearance of deciding cp3's destination should be the clips to improve a franchise that was owned by a racist owner is going to be hard to do. Sterling isn't going anywhere fast.

If that audio was unaltered and that was indeed authentic at a minimum he will be given a lengthy suspension perhaps as much as3-5years