RJ

DeWayne <k9kz@indy.rr.com> wrote:

> "Ron" <ronaldinho_m@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ronaldinho_m-A72F62.14191121112004@individual.net...
> > In article <qb8od.7465$182.4660@fe1.columbus.rr.com>,
> > "DeWayne" <k9kz@indy.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Artest is getting off lightly. The others, I'm not sure.
> >> >
> >> > I also think Detroit is getting off lightly if there's no punishment
> >> > for the inadequate security.
> >>
> >> What kind of message will it send for a drunken mob to be rewarded by
> >> destroying their main competition? I guess whoever has the worst drunken
> >> mob
> >> in their building will win the championship! Every guilty fan who can be
> >> identified should be prosecuted.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I agree with you in part -- which is why I wrote that Detroit is
> > getting off lightly unless there's some repurcussion. (I've previously
> > suggested they play a number of home games in front of an empty stadium).
>
> Maybe even play on a neutral court?
>
> >
> > However, the fact that Detroit benefits (albiet indirectly) from the
> > Indiana suspensions isn't an argument against the suspensions. It's an
> > argument for additional punishments against Detroit -- something that
> > hasn't been announced one way or the other.
>
> I don't dispute the suspensions, but try to put yourself in the shoes of the
> Pacers (not Artest). What would you do in that situation?

I would be really, really sorry that my organization had employed an
insane person like Artest.