Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
Popeyejones":3e6yvxvp said:Siouxhawk":3e6yvxvp said:I get it Si. The story did offer up some insight that offered a little peek behind the curtain, such as the dust-up with Ifedi during a rookie hazing moment (although, there again, it's all second-person narrative since the writer wasn't there and it's reliant on anonymous source recounts). Like you said, though, it has to be taken with a grain of salt and the whole premise behind it is a rather benign storyline hinged on Sherman being a fiery dude, a trifle of jealousy toward Russ and a culture facilitated by Pete that allows for strong personalities in the locker room. Earth-shattering stuff!
In your post two posts above this one you say it's yellow journalism and the writer is just opinionating out of the air.
In this post you say it fails because it's not uncovering any dynamics that people don't already know about.
Which one is it? Do the attributed Smith quotes not count either, or just all of the quotes that are anonymously sourced?
Likewise, Si, I won't bring it up again but I'd hope we can talk about the merits or lack thereof of the story without you derailing by spending a whole paragraph on an off-topic attack on me and my character. Just to say it, as a moderator I think you in particular would prefer that we disagree on the actual topic rather than devolving into personal attacks. If you think I'm trash and my opinions are unworthy of being considered, I'd prefer you just ignore me. Thanks.
Just to reiterate my thoughts on the piece, I think it's a good investigative piece inside the organization, and not a particularly damning one, nor was it intended to be.
I think you're being disingenuous. thats not an attack on your character. Its an attack on your presentation of your opinion. Bit of a victim complex, no? I never said "Popeye is trolling". I said 9er fans are taking the bait. Gleefully so.
I've talked about the merits of the story multiple times in this thread, as well as in direct reply to your posts. Youve not replied. Instead you back the merits of the story by reiterating the same speculation as the article under the guise of it being factual and call out Hawks fans (in its own separate paragraph) who disagree as being influenced by homerism. Is that an attack on us? Is that not hypocritical? You trying to make this some sort of unjustified "attack" on you is just ducking behind the bushes after throwing rocks.
You don't get to have it both ways Popeye.