• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why no moral outrage from Jesse and Al?

If you idiots believe in any degree that Sharpton and Jackson are first political and a distant second about race, you are to be truly pitied.

Nobody is saying that.

But the crime in question is not about race.

And neither is your reverse hypothetical.

I'm sure in America today there will be lots of black people victimized by white criminals. It'll happen tomorrow, too. And the next day . . .

And the Revs. won't say anything about any of those, either.

Try to keep up.
 
Zeke12 said:
We'll all wait for you to show where anyone on this board made that argument.

I know you like arguing with yourself, but, criminy, you're now arguing about two people's possible hypothetical reaction to a possible hypothetical situation and then a possible hypothetical reaction by an imaginary poster on this board.

In conclusion, up the dosage.
Are you referring to me?
 
sportschick said:
Not everything's about you, Boots ::) ::) ::) ::)
You want people to know you are on here. OK we know you are here. Do you have something to contributer to the topic? I guess the answer is no.
There was no need for your remark. You could PM that or something. You used to show some class on the boards. Please do so now by sticking to the topic. Thank you.
 
boots said:
Zeke12 said:
We'll all wait for you to show where anyone on this board made that argument.

I know you like arguing with yourself, but, criminy, you're now arguing about two people's possible hypothetical reaction to a possible hypothetical situation and then a possible hypothetical reaction by an imaginary poster on this board.

In conclusion, up the dosage.
Are you referring to me?

Of course, you could have PM'd this, too, correct?
 
Zeke12 said:
boots said:
Zeke12 said:
We'll all wait for you to show where anyone on this board made that argument.

I know you like arguing with yourself, but, criminy, you're now arguing about two people's possible hypothetical reaction to a possible hypothetical situation and then a possible hypothetical reaction by an imaginary poster on this board.

In conclusion, up the dosage.
Are you referring to me?

Of course, you could have PM'd this, too, correct?
I could but I didn't take a shot at anyone and the reference was about the topic being discussed. Don't get it twisted like a pretzel Zeke. You like to play the good guy role when it suits you and then jab. It's not working this time. Stick to the topic.
 
Maybe I'm a good guy when it suits me.

And you can eat my ass with a spoon, attention-wart.
 
In that usage, Zeke, it wouldn't be hyphenated.

boots is an attention wart.
boots exhibits attention-wart tendencies.

See the difference?
 
Zeke12 said:
Maybe I'm a good guy when it suits me.

And you can eat my ass with a spoon, attention-wart.
I don't need attention zeke. You have yet to realize that its idiots like you who bring attention to my posts. Everyone else either answers and keeps going. By now, you should've figure that out but I forgot, you're not as bright as you think you are.
STICK TO THE TOPIC thank you.
 
sportschick said:
The topic is attention whores, boys and girls.
No, the topic is what the original post was sportschick. You want to threadjack, do it on random thoughts. Not here. People are tired of your schitck and shirt. I'm trying to be kind here.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top