Paging Lynn Hoppes ...

And beer. Don't forget beer. Do I need to buy everyone a beer, here?

 

No, but you can change my tire.

 

Just easin' the tension, baby. Just easin' the tension.

 

Must have missed this, but APSE addressed the Hoppes situation on July 15.

http://twitter.com/APSE_sportmedia/status/224539004517892096

ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz to Journal-isms on Lynn Hoppes: "we've addressed it." http://mije.org/richardprince/quoting-wikipedia-journalistic-laziness#hoppes …

 

I was all set to launch into a tirade against Ragu's pronouncement that somehow the people who use their real names are more trustworthy until I remembered:

Lynn Hoppes isn't even a 6.

 

Sheesh, how did I get in the middle of this?

For saying/posting something that seemed pretty obvious and that probably everybody was thinking?

Ragu, just for the record: Sure, I wondered what carrie's "agenda" was.

But, you didn't think her post had a ring of truth to it?

That's part of why you and the other moderators had to wrestle with it...too close for comfort, and all that, made that way especially because of the fact that Hoppes posts under his own name. But that wasn't our decision, and it's not our fault.

Hell, he could have come on here, even under a different name, and done the exact same thing carrie did: argue/counter/answer every single thing she said, and/or give his opinion of her interpretation of things, and her, for that matter -- with a counterpoint/argument/plea that could have been just as strongly worded as her post.

And I'll bet we would have even saluted it, too, because it would've had a ring of truth, as he saw it, to it.

IJAG is right. Given what others have heard and experienced with regard to Hoppes, and given what I have heard, and what I think, given his transgressions that we do know of, it's not out of line, or less than smart (yes, I was a little insulted at the insinuation), to think carrie's post did have a ring of truth.

Again, tell me it didn't.

It obviously has enough details and indications of either first-hand personal knowledge/experience or contact enough with those who have worked with Hoppes to lend strength, and also, obviously, emotion and tone to the words.

 

No offense to WriteThinking, but what is 'a ring of truth'? Either something is true, or it's not true. To me, 'ring of truth' is just another way of saying 'innuendo.'

 

Jokes.

 

I worked with Lynn as an assistant sports editor for several years in Orlando before the Van era.

Lynn was a good co-worker, and people didn't hate him. I can't think of a single instance of plagiarism or corner-cutting in that time.

Lynn is very good at promoting himself, and a lot of people -- myself included -- are not.

You can't blame someone for that -- we only get one shot at life -- but I think that is what gets some people worked up about Lynn.

 

Lynn Hoppes has never been in my kitchen.

My only point is that for as useful and uplifting this board can be most of the time, the propensity for supposedly intelligent people to take their opinions and innuendo and present them as incontrovertible fact is a very real problem.

There, I think I used enough big words in one sentence. Although I didn't use "privy."

 

For what it's worth, I know who carrie is and I know that she's not making up working with Lynn. That doesn't make her post a notorized affidavit, of course; others' experience could vary. And he's Asian-American? He looked more Native American.