obviously i'll have something to say about this...

And you're giving him attention.

 

There's a good chance that there's far too much ruminating on politics in general. Which would make your connection ... well, asinine.

And J-Dub ... it would be nice, if you present something that you're going to have something to say about, that you would, um, actually SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Because right now, it just looks like more of the same ol' grandstanding.

 

Nice to see us effectively circle the wagons when one of our number is under assault.

Next time, you might let him inside the circle, though ..

 

EDIT: He might have some defenses if he actually PRESENTED some.

 

I just want to be clear that I wasn't suggesting that I'm happy Jason got hacked. I don't know Jason, and from afar, I've kind of admired the way he's built for himself a national reputation. I wouldn't work the same way, but that doesn't mean he's in the wrong for it.

What I was saying, though, was that when you make a living taking bats to people, sometimes somebody is going to shove one of those bats up your ass. It sounds from Wojo's account -- and I'll take an objective observer's view of it over the view of any of the participants -- that Jason got reamed.

He probably knew that he would before he showed up. Credit there, too, then.

Now kindly quit with the PMs asking me what kind of long-standing beef I have with Jason. I have none.

Unless he doesn't think Field of Reams is flat-out awesome porn. Then we're dropping gloves.

 

Just for the sake of argument, one's seeking and/or enjoying attention doesn't necessarily mean one has nothing interesting and/or worthwhile to say.

I daresay everyone who writes for a living wants people to pay attention to said writing.

 

C'mon, Deron. There's no room for reason around here. Not when Whitlock is the subject.

 

Isn't that the scene where you can hear Enberg doing the call in the background? "Oh, my!"

 

jones

you really think wojo is an objective observer given his employer?

you'd never know it from reading his column, but i did speak at the forum.

you'd also never know from reading his column that i used to write at espn.com and work for espn tv. you'd also never know that i was banned from espn tv because of critical comments i made about one of his fellow co-workers at espn.com...

but i can see why you'd call him fair and objective....

there were several conclusions a fair and objective columnist might have reached after watching that forum. wojo's was definitely an option. but there were other options.

 

I did have a problem that nothing you said was quoted there. I would have liked to have heard the answer to what C. Vivian and the others said.

 

You got a Hell of an ego. That's no surprise.
I don't recall you being the centerpiece of of Wojo's column - just part of it. But shame on him for not disclosing your full background in his piece. Who the Hell does he think he is?
Of course as famous as you are most should simply know you as da "Whit of AOL!"
Son of a Bitch are you arrogant.

To quote Wojo:
"This column isn't about Whitlock, who retracted nothing, or Stringer, whose intensity, anger and emotion won over the panelists and the room. But there is no denying that the most charged moments of the evening came when Stringer leaned toward the microphone and defended herself to Whitlock."

I'll give you credit, you were a good part of the column. but certainly not enough to warrant the full disclosure treatment from Wojo. Last time I checked you had a national platform to voice your opinion, flaunt your credentials, air your laundry and rail against the perceived injustices of the world -- which I'm sure you'll do.

You are a very good columnist and a solid citizen, but I think you are about 10 years away from Mike Lupica DIVA syndrome.

 

Writing "This column isn't about Whitlock," accomplishes two things:

1. People can say the column wasn't about Whitlock.
2. He still gets to write a column about Whitlock.