JW goes off on the Rocket

[Smasher_Sloan]

And yet the white folks don't seem to embrace a cheater like Bill Belichick very much.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Jason's won an APSE investigative reporting award. If he wants Clemens to go down so bad, maybe he ought to start digging himself, instead of trying to instruct everyone else to do so.

Maybe I'm naive, but I personally never thought of the Barry Bonds thing as race-related. In fact, Bonds always seemed to be like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson, i.e., a guy who transcends racial categorizing. Whenever I used to read a Bonds race-related column or story, it would be like, "Oh, yeah, Bonds is black. Guess I never really thought of that." I mean, obviously I knew he was black, but I don't think people thought of him that way. Not the way they think of, say, Steve Nash as white.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

"Right now, the masses are upset with Clemens because he's turned attention away from Bonds by claiming innocence and glad-handing congressmen."

Who the heck is upset that Clemens is taking attention away from Bonds?

Jason doesn't even believe this. He just knows it will get a reaction. Stop taking the bait, people. He's only as relevant as we make him.

WFW.
Only good thing is he doesn't show his face much around here these days.

If I wrote a steaming pile of crap like that I wouldn't show my face either. Is this guy related to Bonds?

He doesn't show his face because he committed the worst board crime possible -- outing on a thread.

SC, you know I respect your opinions, but how is that the worst board crime possible? Why's it so important to be kept anonymous?
It's a brick move by Whitlock, especially if the person outed doesn't want to to be outed. I don't, however, understand the value of keeping your identity secret, unless you badmouth your employer or sources on here. Aren't journalists relatively public in their communities anyways?
Anyway, sorry for changing the topic.

worst board move... by galaxies... is outing.

There really is NO other board crime in my book.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Jason's won an APSE investigative reporting award. If he wants Clemens to go down so bad, maybe he ought to start digging himself, instead of trying to instruct everyone else to do so.

Maybe I'm naive, but I personally never thought of the Barry Bonds thing as race-related. In fact, Bonds always seemed to be like Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson, i.e., a guy who transcends racial categorizing. Whenever I used to read a Bonds race-related column or story, it would be like, "Oh, yeah, Bonds is black. Guess I never really thought of that." I mean, obviously I knew he was black, but I don't think people thought of him that way. Not the way they think of, say, Steve Nash as white.

Of course it wasn't race-related.

The people who want Belichick suspended for a year ain't the black folks.

 

[outofplace]

No, Jake, this is an anonymous board and those who choose to remain anonymous should NEVER be outed by anyone.

Outing someone is the worst offense that can be committed on this board.


Meanwhile, I'm convinced Whitlock doesn't believe even half of what he writes anymore. He just writes shirt to see who he can get riled up.
He isn't even one of the top 100 columnists in the country. He's just a race-baiting blowhard.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I see the whole "anonymous message board" idea interesting on the whole, not just this board.
As for Whitlock, what's his motivation? He's already a nationally recognized persona, why risk that by writing something that might harm his status? Unfortunately it appears to me because people have come to expect him to be the "race-touting" columnist he writes accordingly, even if it doesn't add up.

Question it all you like. Outing is the ultimate no-no on this board. Don't like it? Take it up with Webby or go elsewhere.

 

[joe king]

Whitlock's problem is that he can't admit that his central theory has been blown to smithereens. He kept insisting that Bonds was the victim of a racist witch hunt, which has been refuted by the fact that Clemens, now that there's some actual evidence against him, is getting raked over the coals the same way Bonds did. So what does Whitlock do? Make wild, baseless claims that cannot possibly be proven or disproven, in order to prop up his bogus argument that race is a major factor here. "White folks can't wait to forgive Clemens." "The witch hunters never wanted to burn Clemens at the stake." According to whom, Jason?

Everything Whitlock said would never happen to Clemens is happening. So JW tap dances and says, "Don't you see? They're going after Clemens but they don't really want to go after Clemens. The guy they really want is still Bonds." What a bunch of shirt.

Judging from everything I've heard and read locally and nationally, there have been far more people defending/justifying Bonds than Clemens.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

Whitlock's problem is that he can't admit that his central theory has been blown to smithereens. He kept insisting that Bonds was the victim of a racist witch hunt, which has been refuted by the fact that Clemens, now that there's some actual evidence against him, is getting raked over the coals the same way Bonds did. So what does Whitlock do? Make wild, baseless claims that cannot possibly be proven or disproven, in order to prop up his bogus argument that race is a major factor here. "White folks can't wait to forgive Clemens." "The witch hunters never wanted to burn Clemens at the stake." According to whom, Jason?

Everything Whitlock said would never happen to Clemens is happening. So JW tap dances and says, "Don't you see? They're going after Clemens but they don't really want to go after Clemens. The guy they really want is still Bonds." What a bunch of shirt.

Judging from everything I've heard and read locally and nationally, there have been far more people defending/justifying Bonds than Clemens.

Man, great point. It's like it's become so popular to say, "People are picking on Bonds!" that the opposite has become true.

 

[jakewriter82]

No, Jake, this is an anonymous board and those who choose to remain anonymous should NEVER be outed by anyone.

Outing someone is the worst offense that can be committed on this board.


Meanwhile, I'm convinced Whitlock doesn't believe even half of what he writes anymore. He just writes shirt to see who he can get riled up.
He isn't even one of the top 100 columnists in the country. He's just a race-baiting blowhard.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I see the whole "anonymous message board" idea interesting on the whole, not just this board.
As for Whitlock, what's his motivation? He's already a nationally recognized persona, why risk that by writing something that might harm his status? Unfortunately it appears to me because people have come to expect him to be the "race-touting" columnist he writes accordingly, even if it doesn't add up.

Question it all you like. Outing is the ultimate no-no on this board. Don't like it? Take it up with Webby or go elsewhere.

No, I respect the rule. I just find it interesting, and like I said in my first post I understand why it's there. I'd just think that constant harassment or stalking might be worse offesnes. In the end, though, it doesn't matter one way or the other. They're all wrong.

 

[outofplace]

No, Jake, this is an anonymous board and those who choose to remain anonymous should NEVER be outed by anyone.

Outing someone is the worst offense that can be committed on this board.


Meanwhile, I'm convinced Whitlock doesn't believe even half of what he writes anymore. He just writes shirt to see who he can get riled up.
He isn't even one of the top 100 columnists in the country. He's just a race-baiting blowhard.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I see the whole "anonymous message board" idea interesting on the whole, not just this board.
As for Whitlock, what's his motivation? He's already a nationally recognized persona, why risk that by writing something that might harm his status? Unfortunately it appears to me because people have come to expect him to be the "race-touting" columnist he writes accordingly, even if it doesn't add up.

Question it all you like. Outing is the ultimate no-no on this board. Don't like it? Take it up with Webby or go elsewhere.

No, I respect the rule. I just find it interesting, and like I said in my first post I understand why it's there. I'd just think that constant harassment or stalking might be worse offesnes. In the end, though, it doesn't matter one way or the other. They're all wrong.

Fair enough. Whitlock constantly argued the point and disrespected people's choice to remain anonymous on this board before finally crossing the line and outing another poster.

I agree completely regarding the harrassment and stalking, though unfortunately those tend to be much lower priorities for the board in general.