Bob,

Are you going to pay $120K for a front row seat for the fifth game of the Lakers/Celtics  playoff series ?
 

nero 

uphaus:

Peddler,

You're way way out of line.

I, too, think the rating system sucks.  It just presents opportunities to the wrong sort of people.

Petro--you'll always be a 10 out 10 poster.  $108 a ticket was a bargain. Now how much did you spend on drinks and elegant appetizers?!

As a youngster who grew up in Glendale (and back then anyone could afford a Laker ticket),  I gotta say that neither this year's Lakers  nor this year's Celtics compare in any way with the Lakers of Elgin Baylor, Wilt, and Zeke from Cabin Creek, and I'd say the same about the Celtics of Russell, Heinson, Cousy, and Havlicek. 

Ditto for no comparison between this year's Laker and Celtic teams and the respective teams led by Magic and Bird.

My own hunch about the low rating is someone loves Red Auerbach and despises Phil Jackson.  :-)  Bob U. 

P.S. I wonder how long David Stern is going to last as NBA Commish.  He's having to backpedal a fair amount in the last couple of days with respect to the integrity of the game.

Bob,

I can't believe you left out my favorite Celtic of that era, Sam Jones (not to be confused with K.C.)

I spent my entire youth trying to perfect those 30 foot bank shots that he could hit at will.  Just when I started getting really good at it, they went to glass backboards.  That made it much harder to get the depth of field correct.

Bank shots are great if you can make most of them, but if you miss them, everyone assumes you just missed the basket by 2 feet.

Thanks for jogging the somewhat slipping memory.........:o}

best,

Bill

Bill,

My oversight is easily explained.  I'm older than you--more time for them brain cells to disappear into my red wine.

Not only did I forget Sam Jones, But K. C. and Bill Sharman as well.

Maybe I'll light a cigar in their honor tonight.  :-)  Bob U. 

LynnC, anyone who would hesitate to post for fear of a negative strike by some stranger has serious insecurity/self-esteem issues--------------just cant understand all the concern expressed over such---------some people are just too oversensitive

I 've got some observations on this thread from a non-sports fan:

First, this thread or a similar OT post would no longer be permitted at Bogleheads.  Even the Bogleheads seem surprised that OT posts are no longer permitted. I missed it at the time the policy apparently was implemented in mid-April, then noted a few days ago by one of the moderators in a locked thread, so it keeps disappearing from view in the queue.  Interesting to me that Bogleheads come back to M* for something not tolerated at BH.  That's not a criticism, just my observation. They might consider changing their policies to accommodate those of their forum who seem to be voting with their clicks.  (There was a suggestion in one BH post that BHs return to DH to do their OT posting here.)

I do like the rating system and I use it.  It's too bad that factions seem to exist that automatically rate certain names up or down without, in my opinion, any regard for content of the current post.  This thread is a prime example.

I just went back to look at the tone in the sequence of posts in this thread.  IMO this started as a dumb, friendly post (remember I'm not a sports fan). At one point Petrocelli questioned why all the negative votes, perhaps providing tinder; Mel responded, commenting again about the rating button. And so on.

No axe to grind here.  I'm not a frequent poster.  I am dismayed by the way a harmless thread turned sour.

yabadabadoo:

LynnC, anyone who would hesitate to post for fear of a negative strike by some stranger has serious insecurity/self-esteem issues--------------just cant understand all the concern expressed over such---------some people are just too oversensitive

Hi yabadabadoo:

I can assure you that I have no insecurity/self-esteem issues. I've made my mark (and my financial security), both as a former CEO, as a published author, and as a major contributor/builder of this forum for it's entire 10-year history.

My point was and is that the rating system simply helps to destroy what this forum once was -- a "family" of nice folks, getting together to help others. Now we have childish folks striking out at others with this silly rating system, regardless of the quality of the content of their posts.

I hereby promise that I will never again use the rating system, either up or down, despite my feelings about the poster or the content of the post. If others would do the same, perhaps Petrocelli wouldn't have to ask why he received negative ratings. (And do you seriously think Petrocelli has an insecurity/self-esteem issue, since he's the one who initially bought up the subject? Or does that snide remark of yours only apply to my response to his question?)

Regards,

Mel

retired-in-nj:

Mel, bilperk

I 've got some observations on this thread from a non-sports fan:

First, this thread or a similar OT post would no longer be permitted at Bogleheads.  Even the Bogleheads seem surprised that OT posts are no longer permitted. I missed it at the time the policy apparently was implemented in mid-April, then noted a few days ago by one of the moderators in a locked thread, so it keeps disappearing from view in the queue.  Interesting to me that Bogleheads come back to M* for something not tolerated at BH.  That's not a criticism, just my observation. They might consider changing their policies to accommodate those of their forum who seem to be voting with their clicks.  (There was a suggestion in one BH post that BHs return to DH to do their OT posting here.)

I do like the rating system and I use it.  It's too bad that factions seem to exist that automatically rate certain names up or down without, in my opinion, any regard for content of the current post.  This thread is a prime example.

I just went back to look at the tone in the sequence of posts in this thread.  IMO this started as a dumb, friendly post (remember I'm not a sports fan) that drifted off on a comment with a slight edge by bilperk.  Petrocelli questioned why all the negative votes, perhaps providing tinder; Mel responded, commenting again about the rating button. And so on.

No axe to grind here.  I'm not a frequent poster.  I am dismayed by the way a harmless thread turned sour.

 

Hi retired-in-nj,

Please don't take offense, but you do only have 64 posts.  This doesn't make you a second class citizen or anything, but it does probably leave you out of some of the inside jokes.

So I'm not sure which one you thought had an edge with my earlier comments, but Petrocelli and I go way back and "King Bob" was a reference to his own self-proclaimed title several years ago in another life during a near civil war (well it wasn't so civil really)

My second remarks are also an inside joke.  Petro is very proud of his accomplishments and is not ashamed to admit that he owns a mansion on the ocean, several pricey cars, a good set of golf clubs, and has rubbed elbows with Jack Brennan and Heart (That's a rock group, in case your not into music either......well, not Jack Brennan, he's a guy with Vanguard)

Anyway, I wouldn't be amazed to learn that he has met Magic.

You mentioned at least twice that your not a sports fan, but think the Bogleheads might want to change their policy to allow those kinds of posts.  Maybe they don't precisely because folks like you don't find them interesting and they want to keep the focus on investing.

As for the rating system, maybe you can explain why you like it and use it.  I think Mel is right on the money with his comments on it, and I'm pretty sure Perto is just amused that people would actually take the time to rate down a simple fun post.

To me, posts are one persons opinion.  If you have a different opinion, then state it.  But anonymously rating someone's opinion, is just too middle school for me.

best,

Bill

yabadabadoo:

LynnC, anyone who would hesitate to post for fear of a negative strike by some stranger has serious insecurity/self-esteem issues--------------just cant understand all the concern expressed over such---------some people are just too oversensitive

HUH?  Here is what I said in my post, "
Maybe the rating thingies are the reason M* posts are down??  Ya think?

How does this mean that I am sensitive and insecure?  All I have ever said about the ratings system, is that it is silly and it appears to have become personal, as evidenced by the above.

I honestly think the ratings buttons or whatever you want to call them, are the main reason that M* posts are down here at Diehards. This is just my opinion.

LynnC 

Commander Bill... I agree with most of what you said. 

To put it bluntly there are a bunch of old farts here (I consider myself one of those) who have been **talking** together so long that there are many inside jokes and also some hard feelings from arguments won and lost long ago.  That is part of the charm of this place.  Forum culture is like music, some prefer Mozart for his classic style; others prefer Bach for his new takes on old forms.

I think the ratings are sometimes used to assuage leftover hard feelings from those long ago arguments.  That does not make the ratings bad.  I think generally they are good and that as time goes by they will become useful.  I use the ratings to denote posts and topics that I find are interesting.  Sometimes I visit a conversation simply because its ratings are high (or in this case because they are low).

For what its worth, I think the rating system is more reliable than the number of posts that a poster has made.  For example, at least one long-time 3000+ poster has come back as a *new* poster.

Stats

Bill,

I estimate I've been around this board for about 4 years, so I think I do get some of the inside jokes and some of the relationships. Re-reading the thread again, I see that I mis-characterized your comments. I apologize for that. I've edited my original post to correct that.

I haven't posted often, this must be 65, but I wasn't counting, only stating my opinion that the thread had taken a direction I felt was unfortunate. I did state my opinion that I like the rating system and use it. I've read your and others opinion that you don't like the ratings.  So be it.

best regards,

Wowwwwwww, such oversensitivity by both of you guys,  LynnC and Mel as  my "in general" comment was totally misinterpretted. In no way was I directing it to either of you personally but was speaking in general.  Mel, overreacts and calls me snide when my general comment was addressed just to LynnCs and not to a thing he may have said before that---he rushes to defend himself when he wasnt even accused.  I stand by my over-sensitive claims "in general" if you both are going to take offense when nothing negative was in fact directed towards you.

I'm sure few pay any attention to these ratings--positive or negative--except those who chose to use and see them as some great measure of acceptence and respect. With all due respect to your opinion  LynnC I think its preposterous to suspect postings are down here because people are scared of a negative rating on their post. Men "in general" need to quit acting so thin-skinned and having their feelings hurt so easily by a negative rating hit from a stranger-----thats just not manly. ( an "in general" comment directed at noone). If thats all we got to lament about then life would have to be pretty darn perfect otherwise.

I am the initial poster and find it amazing the direction this thread has taken....  long ways from paying $120K for a basketball ticket :-)

nero 

Amazing, is'nt it?

And I notice that you still keep getting a "minus" rating every time I come back to look at this thread!

I always give it a "plus" just to get it back to zero, which brings up yet another flaw to the whole multi-flawed system: you are only allowed one vote (per post) per visit, but if you exit the thread and then re-enter, you can vote again! 

If you are easily amused, you can spend your time entering and exiting and go into a frenzy of "Nyah-Nyahs" all night long.

Fun for the foolish!