Basavich in SI: the full article

1pRoscoe said:
Oh my God, hang him quick!!!

:rolleyes:

I'm sure the FBI will be busting down everyone's door very shortly...
Click to expand...

It, of course, has little to do with the FBI or hanging (it is a federal crime, but what isn't nowadays?). It has to do with pool players here violating the terms of two contracts they signed and selling their integrity for $4.95 (a bad deal, I'd say).

So far, 671 people have visited this thread. Multiply that by $4.95 and you get $3,321.45 of potential revenue STOLEN by...sigh...pool players...so far.

When it was a pool cue taken from a car, eveybody was ready to kill the bastard. Here, the bigger thief gets praised and his loot consumed with delight.

Yeah...this'll help the game. This'll help get more money for the pros. This'll show the public that we can be trusted to run clean halls. This'll encourage SI and the other media to cover pool more...NOT! We've lost more so much here than we've gained.

It starts and ends with each one of us, folks. Reality rules and reality bites, with or without me to highlight it.

Jeff Livingston
 
You're a little anal retentive, aren't you..... (rhetorical question)

Have you ever downloaded music/video from any source? Have you ever noticed a bill/tab left one thing off and not mentioned it? Have you ever gotten a newspaper in your front yard that wasn't yours? Have you ever not paid table time?

Each of these instances is theft, or as you so eloquently put it - lost revenue.

There are fare more "crimes" out there much worse than a simply copy/paste. You see to be the only one that has a problem with it.

I'm sure that SI will never cover the evil, seedy world of pool because one person copy/pasted an article.....

Worry about things that need worry, not petty bullshit like this.

Ross
 
Yeah...this'll help the game. This'll help get more money for the pros. This'll show the public that we can be trusted to run clean halls. This'll encourage SI and the other media to cover pool more...NOT! We've lost more so much here than we've gained

Jeff Livingston[/QUOTE]


Welcome to the jungle. If you think the internet takes liberties in its chatrooms on established web pages. You would be completely blown away in the News Groups (which along with E-Mail was the internet) before web pages existed. There is no monitoring (even to this day) of the news groups and anything goes and most importantly no censorship or accurate tracking of sources of pictures/articals etc. Just don't ever go there, you would be unhappy with the liberty and unlimited info.

Some live by and are controlled by political correctness and some fight it.

Thanks for the article on Kid D. I gambled with him before on matches when he was still thin and didn't realize he even played pool.
BillyRinNC
 
As i said at the start of this post, go ahead and sue me. If you are worried about the direction of mankind cause I did everyone a favor and posted this article, you need to get off the computer and run your ass around the block a few times.

Oh yeah, bttt.
 
henho said:
As i said at the start of this post, go ahead and sue me. If you are worried about the direction of mankind cause I did everyone a favor and posted this article, you need to get off the computer and run your ass around the block a few times.

Oh yeah, bttt.
Click to expand...

Henho, you dun good, sir. It is appreciated. Don't listen to any of that BS.
 
henho said:
As i said at the start of this post, go ahead and sue me. t.
Click to expand...

henho, you probably cost multi-bilion-dollar media conglomerate AOL-Time-Warner at least $ 74 by posting this :D

thanks

I went to the newstand 4 Tuesdays in a row looking for this to come out. I would have gladly bought it. Too bad they chose not to publish it.
 
Wally in Cincy said:
henho, you probably cost multi-bilion-dollar media conglomerate AOL-Time-Warner at least $ 74 by posting this :D

thanks

I went to the newstand 4 Tuesdays in a row looking for this to come out. I would have gladly bought it. Too bad they chose not to publish it.
Click to expand...

I don't get it either, Wally! :confused: There's a picture of Danny Basavich on AzBilliards Home Page in the article about the NAOT in Pittsburgh. He is actually holding up the Sports Illustrated article in magazine form. Where is this magazine, if it can't be obtained on the news stands?

AzBilliards Home Page article about NAOT Day One: http://www.azbilliards.com/2000storya.cfm?storynum=2495

JAM
 
Last edited:
JAM said:
I don't get it either, Wally! :confused: There's a picture of Danny Basavich on AzBilliards Home Page in the article about the NAOT in Pittsburgh. He is actually holding up the Sports Illustrated article in magazine form. Where is this magazine, if it can't be obtained on the news stands?

JAM
Click to expand...

The mail subscribers got an edition that contains the article apparently.

The newstand issues did not contain it.
 
1pRoscoe said:
You're a little anal retentive, aren't you..... (rhetorical question)

Have you ever downloaded music/video from any source? Have you ever noticed a bill/tab left one thing off and not mentioned it? Have you ever gotten a newspaper in your front yard that wasn't yours? Have you ever not paid table time?

Each of these instances is theft, or as you so eloquently put it - lost revenue.

There are fare more "crimes" out there much worse than a simply copy/paste. You see to be the only one that has a problem with it.

I'm sure that SI will never cover the evil, seedy world of pool because one person copy/pasted an article.....

Worry about things that need worry, not petty bullshit like this.

Ross
Click to expand...

I assume you're speaking to me so I'll answer your questions...

The first question's (not rhetorical, btw, but dead on) answer is Yes, I'm being anal retentive about crime. This is because I've been a victim of it
and seen it used against other innocents too any times. I don't like it, and I stated a while ago in another thread that I don't tolerate it in the pool room and I won't tolerate it here. If you that support this crime don't like that, then that is your problem, not mine. I'm holding the mirror up to your face; the image in it is of your making, not mine.

The next questions' answers:

No, Yes, No, No. Now let me ask you a question: Why did you ask me those questions?

Thanks for pointing out that these things you asked about are theft.

And thanks for pointing out that this is a crime, even though not as bad as some other crimes.

I am not the only one who has a problem with it, as evidenced by someone else who posted here first, with the same concern. Shall we ask the victim(s) if they have a problem with it? Aren't they the ones who can value the loss most accurately? And YOU seemed to have a problem in another thread with someone's jump cue problems not being handled properly (with integrity and honesty, I presume?) by the maker...why is this not "petty?" It is much less of a loss than this.

And the number of people who believe a thing has little to do with the reality of it. This is an often used, false argument.

As you pointed out, this is a crime against innocent people---people who were doing a wonderful thing for pool. This means it is not "petty bullshit," except for those who support petty crime and those who care little about pool's image.

Here I am defending honesty and this is being labeled as bullshit.

I think I'll take my business' sponsorship plans to my friend's basketball playing son, instead of toward the pro pool player I was thinking about. It is only going to be about $100 per month, so consider that petty if you want...I don't.

Jeff Livingston
 
chefjeff said:
No, Yes, No, No. Now let me ask you a question: Why did you ask me those questions?
Click to expand...

I'll address this one now.... because they are all "crime" as you have put it thus far. It's all potential lost revenue. If you admit "yes" to any of those questions, you have committed a crime and stolen, just as it has happened above.

All of the others, I'll get to those comments later. I need to run home first and rip off a mattress tag or two and and stop by the bank and take not one, but two mints out of the bowl, when the sign clearly states only one.

Ross

ps - I'm not really going to respond, as I fear that this thread will turn into what the "3 Hercek cues for sale" will turn into, as I am very hardheaded and will defend my opinions to the grave.

yes, I am a very integral, honest person. I trust 99% of this board is the same. If I am such a "criminal" as you have put it thus far, then I have no idea why I have as many business/friends who are willing to "sponsor" me in one way or another. Anyone who knows me will vouch that I am a caring, honest person.
 
1pRoscoe said:
I'll address this one now.... because they are all "crime" as you have put it thus far. It's all potential lost revenue. If you admit "yes" to any of those questions, you have committed a crime and stolen, just as it has happened above.

All of the others, I'll get to those comments later. I need to run home first and rip off a mattress tag or two and and stop by the bank and take not one, but two mints out of the bowl, when the sign clearly states only one.

Ross

ps - I'm not really going to respond, as I fear that this thread will turn into what the "3 Hercek cues for sale" will turn into, as I am very hardheaded and will defend my opinions to the grave.

yes, I am a very integral, honest person. I trust 99% of this board is the same. If I am such a "criminal" as you have put it thus far, then I have no idea why I have as many business/friends who are willing to "sponsor" me in one way or another. Anyone who knows me will vouch that I am a caring, honest person.
Click to expand...
I just want to make sure I'm following you....

Since people commit crime, it's ok to commit crime. You're an integral (whatever that means in this context), honest person, and it's ok to commit theft because, well, everybody does in some form or another, right? No need to suffer moral pangs or legal repercussions, everybody's doing it. Sounds like the definition of an honest pool player to me, no wonder you have so many sponsors....

-djb
 
DoomCue said:
I just want to make sure I'm following you....

Since people commit crime, it's ok to commit crime. You're an integral (whatever that means in this context), honest person, and it's ok to commit theft because, well, everybody does in some form or another, right? No need to suffer moral pangs or legal repercussions, everybody's doing it. Sounds like the definition of an honest pool player to me, no wonder you have so many sponsors....

-djb
Click to expand...

You are reading my post entirely out of context... My point was "crime" is in the eye of the beholder. A bible-beating Christian would consider lust a crime....

That was my point. You don't know me, don't judge me.
 
1pRoscoe said:
You are reading my post entirely out of context... My point was "crime" is in the eye of the beholder. A bible-beating Christian would consider lust a crime....

That was my point. You don't know me, don't judge me.
Click to expand...

I'm not judging you, just trying to get you to think about the things you've said here.

Crime isn't in the eye of the beholder, morality is. Crime is very well-defined in our laws, while morality is entirely up to an individual. Your bible-thumping Christian has a problem with the morality of lust (at least, his perception of it), not its legality. Jeff has a problem with the legality of posting the SI article, while you think there's nothing wrong with that. The difference between your bible-thumper's way of thinking and yours is that lust isn't against the law, while theft is. While it's possible to justify lust as a difference in morality (eye of the beholder), you can't do that in the case of theft (solidly defined in our laws), which is what you've tried to do.

Personally, I paid for the article. I also subscribe to SI. Since I didn't know that I should've been granted free access to the article, I sent a copy of it to someone on this forum who requested it. Since I paid for it twice, I used it twice. I personally don't have a problem with the posting of the article in this thread. If someone really has a problem with it, he doesn't have to read it. At the same time, don't try to fool yourself into thinking that it was ok to post it - it's not. This is clearly a case of theft, no matter how you try to justify it.

-djb
 
DoomCue said:
I'm not judging you, just trying to get you to think about the things you've said here.

Crime isn't in the eye of the beholder, morality is. Crime is very well-defined in our laws, while morality is entirely up to an individual. Your bible-thumping Christian has a problem with the morality of lust (at least, his perception of it), not its legality. Jeff has a problem with the legality of posting the SI article, while you think there's nothing wrong with that. The difference between your bible-thumper's way of thinking and yours is that lust isn't against the law, while theft is. While it's possible to justify lust as a difference in morality (eye of the beholder), you can't do that in the case of theft (solidly defined in our laws), which is what you've tried to do.

Personally, I paid for the article. I also subscribe to SI. Since I didn't know that I should've been granted free access to the article, I sent a copy of it to someone on this forum who requested it. Since I paid for it twice, I used it twice. I personally don't have a problem with the posting of the article in this thread. If someone really has a problem with it, he doesn't have to read it. At the same time, don't try to fool yourself into thinking that it was ok to post it - it's not. This is clearly a case of theft, no matter how you try to justify it.

-djb
Click to expand...

I'm not going to have the entire morality debate with you. Was it theft of services to an extent? Yes. Is it as big of a deal that you all want to blow it out of proportion? No.

My point.
 
Si

Do you think SI produced the article so people wouldn't read it? What is the problem here? Great story, Thanks for sharing it with us all. I would never have read it if it wasn't here. Rosco, calm down baby. You probably own a cue made by a design thief too. LOL
Henho, good job, thanks again. Jeff, buzz off buddy.
Don :cool:
 
Donald A. Purdy said:
Do you think SI produced the article so people wouldn't read it? What is the problem here? Great story, Thanks for sharing it with us all. I would never have read it if it wasn't here. Rosco, calm down baby. You probably own a cue made by a design thief too. LOL
Henho, good job, thanks again. Jeff, buzz off buddy.
Don :cool:
Click to expand...

;)

I wouldn't have read it either...
 
Last edited:
DoomCue said:
I'm not judging you, just trying to get you to think about the things you've said here.

Crime isn't in the eye of the beholder, morality is. Crime is very well-defined in our laws, while morality is entirely up to an individual. Your bible-thumping Christian has a problem with the morality of lust (at least, his perception of it), not its legality. Jeff has a problem with the legality of posting the SI article, while you think there's nothing wrong with that. The difference between your bible-thumper's way of thinking and yours is that lust isn't against the law, while theft is. While it's possible to justify lust as a difference in morality (eye of the beholder), you can't do that in the case of theft (solidly defined in our laws), which is what you've tried to do.

Personally, I paid for the article. I also subscribe to SI. Since I didn't know that I should've been granted free access to the article, I sent a copy of it to someone on this forum who requested it. Since I paid for it twice, I used it twice. I personally don't have a problem with the posting of the article in this thread. If someone really has a problem with it, he doesn't have to read it. At the same time, don't try to fool yourself into thinking that it was ok to post it - it's not. This is clearly a case of theft

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Is this really the venue for this discussion? If you don't agree with the post, don't read it. It is that simple. He that judges others deserves to be judged more harshly himself and I think that is what ultimately happens. Some choose poor battles and others are hypocritical. Jeff was rude to everyone by changing this post and making it less interesting for those interested in discussing the merits of the article and it's turns and twists. To that I say thanks a lot! I seriously question his motives.
I really enjoyed it a lot and was somewhat disappointed that SI published the comment that Earl made. That comment could have been edited out without affecting the quality what-so-ever of a great article.

Lets hear now feedback about the article.
BillyrinNC
Click to expand...
 
BillyRinNC said:
I really enjoyed it a lot and was somewhat disappointed that SI published the comment that Earl made. That comment could have been edited out without affecting the quality what-so-ever of a great article.

Lets hear now feedback about the article.
BillyrinNC
Click to expand...

tap, tap!

I agree to an extent, although that is something that sounds Earl-ish. They shouldn't have printed it, but again, it shows the dire competition and that every venue has a "bad apple" or two....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top