Rez, I see now why you are still a junior member. If you are blind to what everyone else can see then so be it. Grab your AI doll and worship the little punk if you like. AI's work ethic is crap, he shows up late for practice, and sometimes not at all. How is this being a good teamate? So what if he shows up at the games, being on time and a PART of something is more important then just showing up for the games. AI is suppossed to be a leader of that team, apparently he is too immature to even practice. AI is a pathetic example of people getting too many chances when they should be made an example of.... DaDakota
Ummm....Why did you change the subject from the dilemma he is incurring right now to practice???? Did I ever say he was a good teammate? Its good that you change the subject when your back is against the wall. When I called you out on the fact that you make judgements before all the information is presented, you run away like a female and change the subject. Maybe you should reread some of the previous posts before you talk nonsense.
There is really no point in arguing this any more. DaDakota and others obviously made their minds up about Iverson well before this incident. In some people's minds, the fact that he has conflicts with his coach obviously means he is guilty of any crime the police accuse him of. I guess that's why its so hard to find impartial juries in high-profile cases like this. I think some people would fry him just for being a so-called "punk." I think this discussion would go further if some of you would clarify your terms when criticizing Iverson. It is very hard to have a reasonable conversation about real issues and facts otherwise. If you want to make a point against him, please avoid: "punk" "thug" "Piece of s*it" (from the title of the thread) "bad person" "headcase" Instead maybe use more descriptive terms like: "accused criminal" "person who has previously been accused of crimes" "immature person" "bad husband" "bad teammate" "selfish player" "bad dresser" "scary looking guy" "person who hangs out with other scary looking guys" "person who uses poor english" that way, we can pin down exactly what point you are trying to make. Sorry if this sounded condescending, but how can one really argue wether or not someone is a "punk"?
C'mon, <b>patience</b>, all that's being pointed up is a consistent 10 year (entire adult life) pattern of behavior. Some would choose to ignore that. We didn't cause it; we didn't invent it. We just pointed it up. These seem like credible charges. He's been guilty of things like this before. Why are we not surprised? Why is no one surprised? Those who are freeing him are equally guilty of prejudice-- just a different inclinationi. This is all just opinion. Any opinion can be disagreed with. A decision by the court will not matter-- except for Iverson. If he is convicted, rezdawg and others will scream bloody murder for The Innocent Answer. If he is found not guilty, DaDakota or I will start a round of OJ jokes.... Punk is in the mind of the beholder.
The only reason that I was talking about his work ethic was because you said that he gives 110% all the time, so I was just making a point against that. And in DaDakota's defense, he wasn't saying that because Iverson is a punk he is guilty of all of the crimes. He was just stating a point that he is a punk which you are denying. He wasn't comparing it to the case, so please learn when to be quite rezdawg.
REREAD MY POST: I said he gives 110% when he is ON THE COURT, not all the time. DaDakota was relating these recent charges with the fact that he is a punk because he skips practice. The two are not related whatsoever. What was the purpose of bringing up practice then? To show Iverson is a punk? Well, I never said Iverson wasnt a punk. My whole argument in this is that you cannot judge someone before you have all the evidence. Something that you do not understand and can not comprehend.
You're missing my point again. If he truly had a gun, If he truly kicked his wife out, If...If...If...If all of the evidence given is true, then Iverson deserves to be convicted of any and all crimes that relate. All I am saying is do not make up your mind before you know the truth. That would be very ignorant.
Innocent until proven guilty is a very important concept <b>in a freakin' courtroom....</b> No one on a BBS, near a coffee pot, or over a beer is guided or restricted by that very valuable principle. Why the knot? Do you really think that all verdicts deliver Truth? The charges may be absolutely true and he may still get off for lack of proof. Where will ignorance reside after that?
I know what you wrote, but I don't believe that you can give 110% on the court if you don't practice. And in another post when I said that Iverson was a punk you said "why do you think he is a punk, because of everything the media says about him?" So right there you were basically denying that he is a punk. If you think he is a punk they why do you feel obligated to defend him everytime someone insults the jerk?
Insulting him without evidence in this case is wrong. I defend him for that. Yes, he could be a better teammate Yes, he should go to practice Yes, he has character problems and issues he needs to deal with No, I will not say whether he was guilty with the recent charges brought against him until I know everything about the case.
Again... How do you define a "punk"?!!! Should someone serve prison time for being a "punk"?!! I may or may not agree that he is a punk if you'd simply define what the h*ll that is.
Yeah I know that but why do you have to act like it's a crime that people here don't like Iverson and think that he's guilty. I mean you even said in another that I think Iverson is a punk because of what the media says about him. That's a little bit of coming to a conclusion without good hard evidence also. Patience I'm not saying that he should go to jail just because he is a punk. I think he is a punk because he doesn't practice, because of his rap album, and just the way he acts all of the time.
All verdicts do not deliver the truth and that's unfortunate. But, what you are essentially saying is that its ok to assume he was guilty and its not ok to assume he was innocent. Thats ignorance.
Not exactly. Didn't you start railing on those of us who acted as if he were guilty? Why are you so quick to go around calling people ignorant?
Because you have to give him a chance before pouncing on him. That is why I was "railing" all those who thought he was guilty On a side not, Iverson's wife LEFT. He did not kick her out as previously mentioned. The story just gets more interesting.
No matter what happens I do not like the guy. I do want him to get justice, but only if it is fair, but I think he is a bad egg. DaDakota
There's the truth. Regardless of what he really did, you werent going to give him a chance in this case.
Just because Da Dakota does not like him does not mean that he hasn't given him a chance in the case.
