Donaghy disgraced while the NBA is innocent...

[SynicFan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/sports/basketball/08refs.html?_r=1&ref=basketball&oref=slogin

Why is it that every article you read about Tim Donaghy, his name has a prefix of "disgraced" in front of it? what are they trying to sell? that he's a TURRRRIBLE person? we know that. we ALSO know the NBA is not without its own blemishes so why dont they call it the "disgraced NBA"?

and if you disagree with me, your A COMMUNIST!!

[ChumpDumper]

"Disgraced" comes after his name in the article as well as your thread title.

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

What about my a communist?

[SynicFan]

"Disgraced" comes after his name in the article as well as your thread title.

OK, after. but it really doesnt matter. its describing him.
its like they dont want ANYONE to EVER forget that he's a bad person for doing that to the NBA. pffft, i say!!! PFFFFT!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Most times they are giving background information to the average reader who may not have heard about him before. "Disgraced" is a pretty succinct description.

[Mister Sinister]

In Soviet Russia, game fix you!

[romad_20]

succinct

http://www.qstudy.ru/pict/pulp-fiction.jpg

Look at the big brain on Chump

[SynicFan]

Most times they are giving background information to the average reader who may not have heard about him before. "Disgraced" is a pretty succinct description.

I would agree with that had the article said something like "disgraced nba ref, donaghy, who bet on nba games"

but it doesnt. it might go into more details of what he did later in the article (i dont recall at the moment) but if it does go into more detail LATER in the article, is it really necessary to call him 'disgraced' early on? its not just this article either.

my whole point is, the NBA has a 'unmentioned' code of conduct that says "any one who directly covers the NBA will side with us"...
every city, every writer is that way. the ONLY ones not falling in line are journalists who dont directly cover the nba.

look it up.

[Mister Sinister]

Most times they are giving background information to the average reader who may not have heard about him before. "Disgraced" is a pretty succinct description.
Suck what?

[ChumpDumper]

I would agree with that had the article said something like "disgraced nba ref, donaghy, who bet on nba games"

but it doesnt. it might go into more details of what he did later in the article (i dont recall at the moment) but if it does go into more detail LATER in the article, is it really necessary to call him 'disgraced' early on? its not just this article either.

my whole point is, the NBA has a 'unmentioned' code of conduct that says "any one who directly covers the NBA will side with us"...
every city, every writer is that way. the ONLY ones not falling in line are journalists who dont directly cover the nba.

look it up.
Donaghy has admitted to providing inside information to gamblers and to helping them pick games.Read you own article next time.

And please ask the journalists on this site how articles are written.

[jack sommerset]

He is a disgrace. I'm not sure he is the only one. I have not heard shit since they said the FBI talked to other refs. I'm not sure if I will ever trust the NBA again. I am in limbo.

[SynicFan]

Read you own article next time.

And please ask the journalists on this site how articles are written.


Im not defending the guy. what would give you that impression??????

journalists on this site, journalists on that site...
being a journalist is not the issue. who you work for as a journalist is.

[ChumpDumper]

Im not defending the guy. what would give you that impression??????Since I did nothing to imply that, nothing.


journalists on this site, journalists on that site...
being a journalist is not the issue. who you work for as a journalist is.How many are work for the NBA?