Knicks · BRIGGS (page 1)

So did BRIGGS get banned again? I enjoyed what he added here. Is he gone?

Yeah I miss Briggs. Yes he fell in love with draft prospects who he claimed were gonna be stars but flamed out. Besides that he made me laugh

These 'where's BRIGGs' posts are getting like BRIGGs "we should sign player x" threads!

He might have given some insight into the draft but he also advocated the genocide of South Koreans and also the entire Middle East so I'm not going to cry about him not being here. I think he's off sulking somewhere rather than him being banned. Martin was very patient and reasonable with him, but some of Briggs responses to him became increasingly rude.

smackeddog wrote:These 'where's BRIGGs' posts are getting like BRIGGs "we should sign player x" threads!

He might have given some insight into the draft but he also advocated the genocide of South Koreans and also the entire Middle East so I'm not going to cry about him not being here. I think he's off sulking somewhere rather than him being banned. Martin was very patient and reasonable with him, but some of Briggs responses to him became increasingly rude.

Is that what you do when you're not posting here? Sulk?

reub wrote:So did BRIGGS get banned again? I enjoyed what he added here. Is he gone?

I did. BRIGGS and I had a pretty nice offline chat about him sticking to Knicks only thread/posts on our site, at his suggestion, and he didn't.

I don't mean to sound so glib but I don't have time to waste on stuff like that.

martin wrote:

reub wrote:So did BRIGGS get banned again? I enjoyed what he added here. Is he gone?

I did. BRIGGS and I had a pretty nice offline chat about him sticking to Knicks only thread/posts on our site, at his suggestion, and he didn't.

I don't mean to sound so glib but I don't have time to waste on stuff like that.

This fair. If someone not keeping his promises its a price to pay.
This is bbal forum so it is not a place to upset other posters with uncomfortable side stuff.
Something positive and widely accepted always should be welcome. The rest is for political forums.

smackeddog wrote:These 'where's BRIGGs' posts are getting like BRIGGs "we should sign player x" threads!

He might have given some insight into the draft but he also advocated the genocide of South Koreans and also the entire Middle East so I'm not going to cry about him not being here. I think he's off sulking somewhere rather than him being banned. Martin was very patient and reasonable with him, but some of Briggs responses to him became increasingly rude.

Except for one or two replies over a period of many years, I stay out of the politics threads.

I'll say this much though, and this is not an assessment of whose politics is right or wrong or whatnot - I wish Briggs the very best of everything out there.

Briggs, if you ran the Knicks, I'm sure you'd run them right into the ground. Jahlil Okafor would be sitting on a max contract with a crack pipe hanging out with the cast of Jersey Shore. That being said, good luck man, good health and God speed wherever you are. Someone said once you took a bunch of dudes on this site to a game once, so you can't be all that bad. At minimum you can't be worse than me.

P.S Don't date hairdressers. I realize your first instinct will be that you will save money on your perms. But it's a trap. Remember the squid guy in Return Of The Jedi. It's a fucking trap.

You seriously need your own reality youtube channel.

What if the hairdresser has fake boobs and wears dentures?

Briggs changed. He was a valued poster at one time who produced some good topics and engaged in convo.
He also went thru a stage where he no longer could participate but instead started many many new threads to make a point instead.
He also thought he was "discovering" players. He would post youtube videos of them. Not thinking those video's actually influenced him to some extent and if so, they were not really discovered by him? It was weird.
Then he put out daily lists of players knicks should look at. By the end of the season he had a long list then took credit for when they would break out a few years later. If you post 50 kids a year, your pretty much covering a 1st and second rounds.
The political thing was what it was. Briggs were very adamant about his rules and perceptions and decided to not adhere to the forum rules. Its not denying his right for free speech. Its not his house, its Martin and Andrews to do what they want here and we choose to participate or not in a manner that benefits all. Few forums last 17 years. This has endured for a reason.
Facts are more important then Opinions.

Nalod wrote:Briggs changed. He was a valued poster at one time who produced some good topics and engaged in convo.
He also went thru a stage where he no longer could participate but instead started many many new threads to make a point instead.
He also thought he was "discovering" players. He would post youtube videos of them. Not thinking those video's actually influenced him to some extent and if so, they were not really discovered by him? It was weird.
Then he put out daily lists of players knicks should look at. By the end of the season he had a long list then took credit for when they would break out a few years later. If you post 50 kids a year, your pretty much covering a 1st and second rounds.
The political thing was what it was. Briggs were very adamant about his rules and perceptions and decided to not adhere to the forum rules. Its not denying his right for free speech. Its not his house, its Martin and Andrews to do what they want here and we choose to participate or not in a manner that benefits all. Few forums last 17 years. This has endured for a reason.
Facts are more important then Opinions.

The Truth is not an opinion.

THANK YOU FOR BANNING HIM

this is a much better place without him

jrodmc wrote:

Nalod wrote:Briggs changed. He was a valued poster at one time who produced some good topics and engaged in convo.
He also went thru a stage where he no longer could participate but instead started many many new threads to make a point instead.
He also thought he was "discovering" players. He would post youtube videos of them. Not thinking those video's actually influenced him to some extent and if so, they were not really discovered by him? It was weird.
Then he put out daily lists of players knicks should look at. By the end of the season he had a long list then took credit for when they would break out a few years later. If you post 50 kids a year, your pretty much covering a 1st and second rounds.
The political thing was what it was. Briggs were very adamant about his rules and perceptions and decided to not adhere to the forum rules. Its not denying his right for free speech. Its not his house, its Martin and Andrews to do what they want here and we choose to participate or not in a manner that benefits all. Few forums last 17 years. This has endured for a reason.
Facts are more important then Opinions.

The Truth is not an opinion.

It is not about the opinion but about the way it presented and the audience it is presented to.
The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.
For example it is undeniable truth that we all die one day but different people have very different feelings about it.
Some are in piece with this truth and some do not wont to hear about it as it ruins their day.
BRIGGS was ruining the day for too many people and for no reason.
he was told about it but never changed his ways.

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

There is nothing real in the world. All we people see is produced by our senses.
This is MAIJA - the great illusion which each of us see different.
So why to not make other people happy by just accepting that they see the world and truth differently.

If I'm bringing drama to a Knicks message board then I need to take a look at my life.

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

There is nothing real in the world. All we people see is produced by our senses.

That doens't make indisputable perception (another way of looking at what a truth is) any less real.

For example, indipustable perception of say altitude, speed, distance and trajectory of commercial airliners is how we manage to make air travel safe and we don't have 777's crashing into one another over Citifield.

Indisputable perception is who we're able to put a satellite in orbit around the Earth, and the perceptions of anyone who think the Earth is flat is irrelevant to the equation, other than they too get to enjoy the tangible benefits provided to them by science they don't believe in.

So why to not make other people happy by just accepting that they see the world and truth differently.

Literally thousands of answers to this question - one off the top of my head is because some people see the world and truth in a way that justifies to them denying the human rights and even the lives of others.

No, I don't think we should accept the world and truth view of the guy who walked into the Pittsburgh synagogue and decided to act on his perceptions.

Do you?

Really?

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

There is nothing real in the world. All we people see is produced by our senses.

That doens't make indisputable perception (another way of looking at what a truth is) any less real.

For example, indipustable perception of say altitude, speed, distance and trajectory of commercial airliners is how we manage to make air travel safe and we don't have 777's crashing into one another over Citifield.

Indisputable perception is who we're able to put a satellite in orbit around the Earth, and the perceptions of anyone who think the Earth is flat is irrelevant to the equation, other than they too get to enjoy the tangible benefits provided to them by science they don't believe in.

So why to not make other people happy by just accepting that they see the world and truth differently.

Literally thousands of answers to this question - one off the top of my head is because some people see the world and truth in a way that justifies to them denying the human rights and even the lives of others.

No, I don't think we should accept the world and truth view of the guy who walked into the Pittsburgh synagogue and decided to act on his perceptions.

Do you?

Really?

Not accepting other people view of the world made this person to kill this people.
Acceptance is not let people to do what they want.
It is for you own sake to not try to change other people perception by the only possible way by make them non-existent.
No one can change other people world. You can make them shut up and stop them expressing it. But they will still see the world in their own way.
And our knowledge that the Earth is round not flat is just more precise perception but for sure is not the whole truth.
There are many more beings in the universe who may see Earths in compositely different way.
As a wave of frequencies, or cloud of energy.
This does not matter for us. But we will have to accept their perception if we come to meet them.

anrst wrote:THANK YOU FOR BANNING HIM

this is a much better place without him

It is not a better place without him.

I don't agree with even one piece of pure basketball analysis he ever had. Not once. But he loves this team. Right down to the fucking bone.

He brought value to the site by initiating basketball discussion that spread out from his original topics. There is not enough legit NBA news to cover a 365/24/7 cycle. There is certainly not enough Knicks news to do that.

If he was banned or chose not to return, to me, the only proof it shows is that there should be ZERO political discussion in the General Discussion areas. I get sometimes personal stuff gets out ( someone's kid dies or someone finds out they have bad health, shit when I was going through chemo, it would have been nice to ask for support on a really rough day, I get sometimes things are community based and not always NBA based, I also get NBA talk spins out into pop culture/entertainment/celebrity, things that extend into how we function as a society) but politics is just going start shit somewhere with someone.

If Andrew asked me ( and he's not), I'd say ban all political discussion from the Gen Disc area period. Nothing good will come of it. It's too personal for people. Then again, he could say to me, talking about how marriage sucks all the time, nothing good will come of that either. The difference though is my male model good looks. When I say something off the rails, people say, "That Triple Threat, he's such a cad! Pass the crumpets!" But when regular people do it, they just get really angry.

Open political discussion in this area of the board is just gonna fuck things up. Plenty of other sites ban it in their main areas for reason. There are things that just polarize and set people off. For example, I have to buy 200 new shirts every month, because women keep chasing me around and tearing them off of me. I can't fight them off. Guys keep asking me, are you wearing Axe or something? I'm tired of doing yard work and having neighbors get lawn chairs, watch me and start the applause. It's mentally taxing. I just want to be loved for my mind, not used for my body over and over again. See, that shit sets me off.

Briggs brought value to this site in his own way. Feel free to disagree with his politics. But let's not pretend he was not a member of this community as a whole.

I miss Briggs. I feel he's the kind to love me for my mind. So there's that.

Heard the same or worse (repeatedly) from posters who are still here. Not even a suggestion to curb their behavior. Not so big a board that it could be missed.

Briggs f'ed up, he wasnt alone. Not enough brown nosing I guess.

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

There is nothing real in the world. All we people see is produced by our senses.

That doens't make indisputable perception (another way of looking at what a truth is) any less real.

For example, indipustable perception of say altitude, speed, distance and trajectory of commercial airliners is how we manage to make air travel safe and we don't have 777's crashing into one another over Citifield.

Indisputable perception is who we're able to put a satellite in orbit around the Earth, and the perceptions of anyone who think the Earth is flat is irrelevant to the equation, other than they too get to enjoy the tangible benefits provided to them by science they don't believe in.

So why to not make other people happy by just accepting that they see the world and truth differently.

Literally thousands of answers to this question - one off the top of my head is because some people see the world and truth in a way that justifies to them denying the human rights and even the lives of others.

No, I don't think we should accept the world and truth view of the guy who walked into the Pittsburgh synagogue and decided to act on his perceptions.

Do you?

Really?

Not accepting other people view of the world made this person to kill this people.
Acceptance is not let people to do what they want.
It is for you own sake to not try to change other people perception by the only possible way by make them non-existent.
No one can change other people world. You can make them shut up and stop them expressing it. But they will still see the world in their own way.

That isn't mutually exclusive to there being truth.

A person who perceives him or herself to be bulletproof will almost certain die or suffer catastrophic injury if they hold a loaded gun up to their head and pull the trigger.

Not a single other person who knows that person is in fact not bulletproof and whether or not they choose to dispute his or her perception will not alter what will happen in that circumstance.

And our knowledge that the Earth is round not flat is just more precise perception but deferentially not the whole truth.
There are many more beings in the universe who may see Earths in compositely different way.
As a wave of frequencies, or cloud of energy.
This does not matter for us. But we will have to accept their perception if we come to meet them.

If you have a driver's license and own a car, you by your actions utterly deny what you claim is your world view.

You in fact put yourself in a situation in which you are entirely dependent upon the assumption everyone else on the road with you in other cars you've never met in fact has a universal perceptual vernacular. With your very life and perhaps the lives of your children your assume they also perceive and then interpret 'red' and 'double yellow lines' and 'stop' and speed the same as you without every having a conversation with them about it.

4 people who have never met before and may have little to nothing in common and who never utter a word to one another can successfully navigate a 4-way intersection because they agree they perceive the situation the same.

That's what our shared language describes as truth.

You're lying or confused if you believe otherwise.

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

arkrud wrote:The truth is much less important that the way people fell about it.

Yeah, no.

There is nothing real in the world. All we people see is produced by our senses.

That doens't make indisputable perception (another way of looking at what a truth is) any less real.

For example, indipustable perception of say altitude, speed, distance and trajectory of commercial airliners is how we manage to make air travel safe and we don't have 777's crashing into one another over Citifield.

Indisputable perception is who we're able to put a satellite in orbit around the Earth, and the perceptions of anyone who think the Earth is flat is irrelevant to the equation, other than they too get to enjoy the tangible benefits provided to them by science they don't believe in.

So why to not make other people happy by just accepting that they see the world and truth differently.

Literally thousands of answers to this question - one off the top of my head is because some people see the world and truth in a way that justifies to them denying the human rights and even the lives of others.

No, I don't think we should accept the world and truth view of the guy who walked into the Pittsburgh synagogue and decided to act on his perceptions.

Do you?

Really?

Not accepting other people view of the world made this person to kill this people.
Acceptance is not let people to do what they want.
It is for you own sake to not try to change other people perception by the only possible way by make them non-existent.
No one can change other people world. You can make them shut up and stop them expressing it. But they will still see the world in their own way.

That isn't mutually exclusive to there being truth.

A person who perceives him or herself to be bulletproof will almost certain die or suffer catastrophic injury if they hold a loaded gun up to their head and pull the trigger.

Not a single other person who knows that person is in fact not bulletproof and whether or not they choose to dispute his or her perception will not alter what will happen in that circumstance.

And our knowledge that the Earth is round not flat is just more precise perception but deferentially not the whole truth.
There are many more beings in the universe who may see Earths in compositely different way.
As a wave of frequencies, or cloud of energy.
This does not matter for us. But we will have to accept their perception if we come to meet them.

If you have a driver's license and own a car, you by your actions utterly deny what you claim is your world view.

You in fact put yourself in a situation in which you are entirely dependent upon the assumption everyone else on the road with you in other cars you've never met in fact has a universal perceptual vernacular. With your very life and perhaps the lives of your children your assume they also perceive and then interpret 'red' and 'double yellow lines' and 'stop' and speed the same as you without every having a conversation with them about it.

4 people who have never met before and may have little to nothing in common and who never utter a word to one another can successfully navigate a 4-way intersection because they agree they perceive the situation the same.

That's what our shared language describes as truth.

You're lying or confused if you believe otherwise.

I think we actually agree on all counts.
Person perceives him or herself to be bulletproof cannot be saved from suicide by the gun. The fact that his perception of the world is self-destructive does not mean that this was not his truth until he died and so it remain truth for him forever.
People on the intersection survive as they accept that the other people will stop and start driving only when cars who came first will pass.
The only difference is that you advocating others to accept your perception of reality but I propose to accept the perception of others without changing your own. The difference seems small but it changes violence to piece and stress to bliss.