What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

BouncyBall 2013/2014

Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

I would be almost certain that the agreements, contacts that needed to be signed and agreed upon to become an NBA owner, restrict the right of owners to file litigation against the NBA and NBA Board of Governor's with regards to the forced sale of a team.
 
Except for the way he treated Baron Davis. Except when he didn't want to pay JJ Redick or Eric Bledsoe what they were worth because it was too much for a white player.

Didn't Elgin Baylor say working for him was like on a southern plantation?

Sterling being a racist bigot is hardly news, it's been known for decades. The curious thing to me is what is different about this time? I don't have any issue with Silver's decision, but if the Clippers weren't good, would this still be a big deal?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

And I don't think you can really call a knowingly recorded conversation "private".
Really? So guy and girl film themselves having sex. It's not private? Just part of the public domain? Just because it involves at least two people, or because it may be recorded, doesn't remove it from certain privacy considerations, or remove either party's expectation of privacy they may have had. Assuming he knew she was recording this call, do you think he understood it was to be broadcast by TMZ to the world? Recording it, or letting it be recorded may be a mistake in judgment, but it doesn't necessarily make the conversation any less private.

Edit:

Anyone else find it kind of funny the NAACP was going to give Sterling it's "Lifetime Achievement Award." http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-naacp-award

That's kind of hilarious. :p
 
Last edited:
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Like most, I have serious reservations about punishing someone for what most of us consider unacceptable speech, though it's satisfying to see a guy like him take it in the teeth. But this is more of a contract matter between Sterling and the NBA, so things like "reasonable expectation of privacy" and other first amendment concepts are not as applicable.

But the litigation should be fun to watch.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Like most, I have serious reservations about punishing someone for what most of us consider unacceptable speech, though it's satisfying to see a guy like him take it in the teeth. But this is more of a contract matter between Sterling and the NBA, so things like "reasonable expectation of privacy" and other first amendment concepts are not as applicable.

But the litigation should be fun to watch.
I understand that when he joins a club, like the NBA owners, his actions can affect his involvement in the club.

I guess what really bothers me is this very private disclosure, and then society as a whole jumping on without stepping back and saying "wait a minute, what's the deal with this girl, her motives, and this disclosure of a very private discussion." Instead, we as a society are happy to pick up the torches and pitchforks and parade through the square.

It's just too bad that when we tell someone a secret, and they then blab it around town, our voyeuristic society doesn't question it, or punish the gossip, but instead punishes the person with the secret.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

I understand that when he joins a club, like the NBA owners, his actions can affect his involvement in the club.

I guess what really bothers me is this very private disclosure, and then society as a whole jumping on without stepping back and saying "wait a minute, what's the deal with this girl, her motives, and this disclosure of a very private discussion." Instead, we as a society are happy to pick up the torches and pitchforks and parade through the square.

It's just too bad that when we tell someone a secret, and they then blab it around town, our voyeuristic society doesn't question it, or punish the gossip, but instead punishes the person with the secret.

Why do her motives matter? He said what he said. Do her intentions somehow make what he said OK?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Why do her motives matter? He said what he said. Do her intentions somehow make what he said OK?
What he said is wrong. I think he knows that what he said would not be publicly acceptable. That's probably why he didn't say it in public. He said it in private, to someone that he apparently trusted, and to someone with whom he had an intimate relationship.

She's essentially a tattletale. Before the time when personal cameras/recorders were everywhere, she would have had to stand up and say, "do you know what Donald said? He used a naughty word. He hates black people. He's a racist."

There was a time when as a society we looked equally, if not more, askance at the tattletales than we did the person who used the naughty word. And IMHO that change in our society has been our loss.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Another way of looking at this Priceless is what if she had never disclosed this tape? Would anyone have been hurt? Anyone offended? The NBA boycotted?

For all we know he has made identical, or worse, comments to her or his other girlfriends for 30 years. In fact, I would bet on it. I seriously doubt he just developed this attitude at age 80. But no one had a recorder.

Were we as a society, or the NBA, or the Clippers, or African Americans, or anyone else harmed by all these statements? We didn't, and don't, know whether they even exist(ed).

It's one thing to be Cliven Bundy and grab the nearest public microphone and declare your bigotry. But this is different.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

What he said is wrong. I think he knows that what he said would not be publicly acceptable. That's probably why he didn't say it in public. He said it in private, to someone that he apparently trusted, and to someone with whom he had an intimate relationship.

She's essentially a tattletale. Before the time when personal cameras/recorders were everywhere, she would have had to stand up and say, "do you know what Donald said? He used a naughty word. He hates black people. He's a racist."

There was a time when as a society we looked equally, if not more, askance at the tattletales than we did the person who used the naughty word. And IMHO that change in our society has been our loss.

Yes, we have changed. For the better. We actually hold people accountable now. This is the same type of mentality that I dealt with as a juror on a rape trial. We had three bigots who insisted "she had it coming" because of what the victim was wearing. No, she didn't. If a corporation is doing something wrong and you find out, are you going to be a "tattletale" or just let your employer continue as if you didn't notice?

By some accounts he knew he was being recorded for a book she was writing. Did he really think this was going to remain private? He's not an idiot. He's a racist bigot, but he's not stupid.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Yes, we have changed. For the better. We actually hold people accountable now. This is the same type of mentality that I dealt with as a juror on a rape trial. We had three bigots who insisted "she had it coming" because of what the victim was wearing. No, she didn't. If a corporation is doing something wrong and you find out, are you going to be a "tattletale" or just let your employer continue as if you didn't notice?

By some accounts he knew he was being recorded for a book she was writing. Did he really think this was going to remain private? He's not an idiot. He's a racist bigot, but he's not stupid.
It isn't even remotely close to your jury example, or a whistleblower in an employment setting.

But, on the other hand, I'm not surprised you're leading the "gotcha" brigade and carrying one of the pitchforks.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

It isn't even remotely close to your jury example, or a whistleblower in an employment setting.

But, on the other hand, I'm not surprised you're leading the "gotcha" brigade and carrying one of the pitchforks.

Those examples sure have to do with your questioning her motives and the whole idea of "tattletales" in society.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

It isn't even remotely close to your jury example, or a whistleblower in an employment setting.

But, on the other hand, I'm not surprised you're leading the "gotcha" brigade and carrying one of the pitchforks.
This whole line of discussion is silly, so I'm going to attempt to shut-'r-down by satisfying Godwin:

If someone had taped evidence in 1935 of Hitler saying he was going to exterminate the Jews, you'd really quibble over who recorded the data and what their motives were?

Thinking that he's an idiot for saying that stuff - even in private - does not mean that I have a pitchfork in my hand. If he didn't make her sign any sort of non-disclosure agreement or confidentiality clause, he should have no more expectation that those conversations would remain private than if he'd been shouting them on the street corner. Why else would she have any obligation to keep those conversations private?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Thank god we eliminated the silliness in this thread by making the legit comparison between extermination of a race and instructions not to bring Magic Johnson to a basketball game.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Thank god we eliminated the silliness in this thread by making the legit comparison between extermination of a race and instructions not to bring Magic Johnson to a basketball game.
I agree with you that was over the top. But exactly what kind of "secrets" do you think are deserving of being kept? Would you condemn me if, for example, I was told, in confidence, the whereabouts of a serial killer and I revealed the whereabouts to the police? Do you think admonitions not to bring Magic Johnson to a basketball game are worthy of being kept secret? So that if my spouse tells me not to hang out with my drinking buddies, there is some moral reason I shouldn't tell anybody what she said?

I don't recall everything that was on the tape, but I don't remember Sterling ever saying or implying "Now I'm about to reveal something to you in confidence" or saying anything that implies that he's revealing sensitive information that is never to be repeated. He doesn't reveal that he's considering a sex change operation or that he used to masturbate when he was fifteen or any deep personal secrets. He simply tells her a bunch of things that she's done that bother him.

Whatever wrong she did was a private wrong between her and Sterling. She's a crappy girlfriend with a big mouth. But am I offended by what she did? Nope. Don't think I'd consider her as good girlfriend material (don't think I need to worry though; I'm an old fart, but doubt that I have enough money to attract her;)).
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Moral of the story is two fold.

1) Don't be a racist ***hole
2) Don't trust a gold digger

Most people find these to be common sense.

BTW, this is for the lawyers here. I'm assuming that the NBA has by-laws that say a 3/4 vote of owners can force the sale of a team. If not, can Sterling refuse to sell (Obviously, I assume the NBA can then kick them out if he does)?
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

Moral of the story is two fold.

1) Don't be a racist ***hole
2) Don't trust a gold digger

Most people find these to be common sense.

...

Though if you're an 80 year old racist azzhole with several billion bucks, common sense may not be very common, and those gold diggers may look pretty nice.
 
Re: BouncyBall 2013/2014

I agree with you that was over the top. But exactly what kind of "secrets" do you think are deserving of being kept? Would you condemn me if, for example, I was told, in confidence, the whereabouts of a serial killer and I revealed the whereabouts to the police? Do you think admonitions not to bring Magic Johnson to a basketball game are worthy of being kept secret? So that if my spouse tells me not to hang out with my drinking buddies, there is some moral reason I shouldn't tell anybody what she said?

I don't recall everything that was on the tape, but I don't remember Sterling ever saying or implying "Now I'm about to reveal something to you in confidence" or saying anything that implies that he's revealing sensitive information that is never to be repeated. He doesn't reveal that he's considering a sex change operation or that he used to masturbate when he was fifteen or any deep personal secrets. He simply tells her a bunch of things that she's done that bother him.

Whatever wrong she did was a private wrong between her and Sterling. She's a crappy girlfriend with a big mouth. But am I offended by what she did? Nope. Don't think I'd consider her as good girlfriend material (don't think I need to worry though; I'm an old fart, but doubt that I have enough money to attract her;)).
Your post justifies a response, so I'll respond. But I've said my piece and I don't want to hijack this thread any more than I already have. People understand my position and I don't think it's a matter of whether my opinion is right or wrong. It's just my opinion and I understand there are those who will disagree.

If someone overhears another describe a crime already committed, or one about to be committed, then by all means they should "tattle".

So of course, if someone says they have a plan to exterminate the Jews, or rape a young woman, I think we would all want and expect the witness to come forward, without condemnation.

The same with Priceless' whistleblower analogy.

But Donald Sterling did not tell his mistress that he and his Klan buddies went out and lynched a black man last night, or that they were planning to do so tonight. He didn't tell her that he had just instructed all his managers to fire the African Americans working under them, or tell his apartment managers (again?) to refuse to rent to minorities. If she had reported those, I might never have posted here.

But what he said, effectively, is "I don't like black people." He expressed an opinion, privately. No one was killed due to that opinion. No one lost their job, or was evicted from their apartment. It was just an old, bigoted man, expressing his opinion.

And I posed the question, are we really better off as a society when someone turns around and tattles, gossips or reports (however you want to describe it) that opinion? In my opinion, no. But others apparently differ.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top