Chris Jones on Jason Whitlock

Actually, I didn't think you would just erase my comments without some kind of warning or an aside. I thought it was someone else entirely. Disappointed? Yes. Hate? No.

I don't know why Jones did it. Maybe it's because they have some history here; or maybe it's because Whitlock does that type of shit all the time. He once launched some brutal attack against one of the network faces. I was thinking it was Brad Nessler, but it didn't come up on google. Whitlock is downright mean and self-serving. Kinda like his fans on here.

And since when does being photographed with a gay or transgendered person mean you are gay? Chris L. needs to re-read his gay handbook.

 

I'm assuming that this is the photo Jones was referring to

http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/jason%20whitlock%20and%20big%20boobied%20friends.jpg

Unless Jones knows something for sure or was there - then calling one of those girls a transvestite serves no other purpose but to slur that Whitlock has more Omar-like tendencies then are publicly known. Why else do Jones go out of his way to bring it up?

 

The flame war going on here predates my time, but regarding the question of why the prominent writers are gone, that may be attributable to company policy more than anything that happened here. I believe ESPN banned its writers from message boards and non-ESPN-related Tweeting, and other major places followed suit.

 

that was McGregor's reason, LTL.

 

Sure looks like some Adam's Apple is in play on the front one.

But seriously, it doesn't imply Whitlock's gay. I think it's just poking fun at how cool Whitlock thinks he looks in that photo.

And LongTimeListener, I know of other boards where prominent writers for some of those agencies you mentioned post without punishment and without a bunch of people attacking them with comments from out of left field.

 

Here's the thing, if you'll indulge me.

Jones was very opinionated about things, both positively and negatively. As was MacGregor. And numerous other big-timers who used to post here under their names or shortened versions thereof. As was Whitlock, though the others (IMO) were much better writers in expressing their opinions.

When people don't hide how they feel about situations, or don't pull punches in explaining those feelings, it tends to turn some people off. Those who didn't agree with Jones, that bugged them. Same with Whitlock. It's just a very polarizing position to hold. But that's why they're columnists. They have takes, and they share them.

 

And I have no doubt there are still noted writers here, who just stay anonymous

 

Oh, absolutely. That's why I specified the ones who posted under their real names or versions thereof.

 

In the comments section, Jones talks about good work being its own reward and the reward for good work coming from within.

That's certainly true, and I want to believe it's always enough. But it's not a reward you can put on the table or pay the rent with. Like most of us, I know people who take immense pride in their work, pros as Jones might call them, who are either out of work, or toiling somewhere that doesn't give them the resources to use their full abilities. Is good work enough of its own reward for them? It seems like something that's easier to say when you're a much admired staff writer at Esquire than a survivor at a 30k.

I'm sure my jadedness and bitterness made me read too much into an innocuous truism that wasn't really the point of his piece. And I don't usually get much of an elitist vibe from Jones. It's just something that struck me as I read the discussion. I agreed with much of the sentiment of Jones' entry.

 

Exactly.

Besides, Chris, your position implies that just because one is photographed with an Asian transvestite hooker they're necessarily hooking up with him. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I've been photographed with gay guys and female college cheerleaders and have yet to sleep with either.