Delete This Account

waitasecond. son of a bleep. i wouldn't refer to anyone as a moron, not even you. and the whole pariah thing doesn't exactly jibe when considering that it was TO who helped get the Eagles to the Super Bowl and then, despite numerous doctors and trainers telling him that he shouldn't play, he went off and nearly won the game for them single-handedlly on offense. maybe there is something in the modern definition of pariah that i'm not geting. and as for being the "first journalist" to find the "real TO," i don't exactly understand what you're getting at Mr. Pulitzer. once again, you bang on your stubburn drum of absolutes, discount everything postive that's ever been written about Owens, dismiss any suggestion that he is nothing but an pariah and then attempt to explain to me how to do my job. what high horse are you riding, sir, and who gets the job of cleaning up behind you because there's a lot of stuff that requires being shoveled. mother of god, you are so enormously bullheaded that pigs and asses bow down before you. jw

indeed, you've made it clear that you simply don't believe his claims. i get that. i've made it clear that i think you're opinion is wrong and nothing you will say or write will change my opinion until i encounter something with T.O. that leads me to change my opinion. this all began because i disagreed with your point, when you said it was "inconceivable," and went on to suggest that you might have been on firmer ground had you written "it might not be inconceivable." and you continue to bang your drum of stubborn absolutes, thinking the more you bang it the more we'll what, fold? see the light? you've shared your opinion. you've called players all the names that you'd like. great. you think people are morons. i personally don't view people this way. i generally care to see people as who they are, people, having good and bad qualities, some more and some less. of course, you being perfect, well ... jw

i liked the quick picture of Jessica Simpson. that was nice. jw ADD: great, Mr. WEO's going to have an issue with that, now.

not entirely true. i've dealt with some very publicity happy athletes (names withheld) whom i found to be people that i didn't like. and i hope you couldn't guess which ones i'm referring to based on what i've written. jw

sorry, should've made myself more clear about the name-calling. i was referring to Lynch and Owens. there's no fun in responding to someone with their mind so made up who thinks it unfortunate that Owens is not a pariah and that Lynch is a complete moron, and then also questions my reputation as an objective journalist because i believe in providing someone the benefit of the doubt when i meet and deal with them. jw

ieatcrayonz should be worried. very worried. jw

i deleted my last post because i've decided i stated my case several times earlier and Mr. WEO has failed to respond, instead, choosing to continue questioning my objectivity while going on with his incessant name-calling. jw

people seem to have problems in elevators. back at gm place in vancouver, i'm in the elevator waiting to take me up to the press box -- there's a bank of three and not one of them are reserved solely for reporters. and this person gets in and crows, "wow, i've never been in this elevator before." what, like it goes sideways or something? jw

jw

but i challenged your observation and you suggest i have lost my objectivity in light of all that i have noted has happened. i don't dispute your claim that Owens has a fascination with publicity, but you suggest he gives up all his right to privacy. how? and then you further suggest that i should approach my job in covering T.O. with preconceived notions based on reports that i've read of his past. certainly, it would be wrong of me to ignore Owens' reputation and what's been written about him. but you suggest that i form my opinion -- as you appear to have done -- solely based on his past and not through my personal experiences with him and my own observations, as every reporter should do. so far, the reputation that preceded him and what i have observed do not match. and yet you suggest that i've lost my objectivity, when, in fact i'm attempting to be as objective as possibly by forming my opinion upon my own experiences. and yet, since my opinion doesn't match yours, of course, i am automatically a sellout. but that's easy for you to say because all you seem to deal with is in stubborn absolutes. also, i dispute your characterization of Marshawn Lynch. is there anyone that you do like? jw Edited.

my favorite is somewhat sports related, and goes back to when i was covering the canucks in vancouver. i was having a smoke outside gate 9 of gm place, the press gate. that's when someone walked up and asked, "is this the only gate 9?" ummm .... jw

no problem, sen. as much as i am very happy to be living in the United States -- and even count some Americans as friends -- i maintain a high level of passion for my native land and will go out of my way to defend it. one thing i was wondering about the over-paying, if i read the article correctly, the deal means that the home now comes off the city's tax roll because it is now considered international land. i'm wondering whether by overpaying, the additional taxes and closing costs somehow reflect the money lost by the city/state. ... just wondering. oh, and evidently, many of us canadians have money to burn ... see a certain mr. balsillie. jw

well, if you would provide media tours prior to that lease agreement being signed and your potential tenant changes his/her mind then i guess you get what you ask for. but what do i know being a dumb canadian and all. jw

here's what i don't get, and it's been kind of itching to come out these past few days. what has T.O. done wrong since arriving in Buffalo? from my perspective, other than a few amusing tweets, here's what's happened over the past four months: -- he was present for a few offseason voluntary workout sessions. -- he attended all but 2 voluntary minicamp practices. -- he has hailed bills fans for embracing him and welcoming him to town. -- when asked why he felt he deserved the key to the city, owens directed the question toward the mayor and then added he's sure there are many people in town worthy of the recognition. -- he's said nice things about his teammates and talked up the offense and defense. -- he's spent time after practice to work with trent and lee evans. -- he alleged that a homeowner refused to allow him to view a home because of potential "drama." -- when finally agreeing to lease a home, someone breaks his confidence by discussing the transaction and then allows cameras inside the residence. -- he's offered a chance for a youngster to win an expenses-paid trip to his football camp in dallas. and had he known he would've been released, he would've considered holding a youth camp in buffalo, but the wheels were already rolling on the camp in dallas, so he didn't want to disappoint anyone there. -- he's provided assistance in helping bobby april's katrina fundraiser. -- he blamed tony romo and oc garrett for his release from dallas, a move that still disappoints him. -- he's looked for a place to live in western new york, rather than, as some suggested he might, toronto. -- he's not said anything wrong about buffalo's night life. -- he's not been arrested. -- he's not suggested the franchise might be better relocating to toronto. so of course i can see how owens can be regarded as being an attention-starved, mentally-arrested person with pathological compulsions. jw

with all due respect, the reason i disagreed with Mr. WEO's position is because he postulated an absolute conclusion: "it's inconceivable." had he, perhaps, written "it's not inconceivable," then he would have been on firmer ground. and i now question his authority as a result of his blunt response to my disagreeing with him, and the suggestion that i am among those caught in some manipulative net. by no means do i consider myself an "authority" on much if anything, and yet i would hope that i have a sense of how the media works and also a little insight into T.O. in having dealt with him now on numerous occasions, including several 1-on-1 interviews. i'm merely asking Mr. WEO what his credentials might be when it comes to the insights he's providing, and wondering whether he might, in fact, be the one who's being manipulated by the media because his opinions in regards to T.O. -- the "pathologic compulsion" comment in particular -- are ones that have been well covered in the press and on tv. he has a right to his opinions, as much as i have a right to challenge them. and all i'm asking is whether Mr. WEO reached his opinions based upon personal experience or from the comfort of his living room couch? jw

and you're an authority because ... ? jw

inconceivable? i disagree with that. as for mundane, my twitter site would be mundane if i kept it up to date. i'd hazard a guess most of ours would be, as well. but for someone with 41,000-plus followers, i'm guessing he's keeping them interested. jw

true enough, but even though some members of the media and a VH1 crew were on hand for that tour, there was no deal reached or lease signed during the filming. from what i've been told, filming in buffalo took place during the one week the crew was in town and anything that's happened since hasn't been filmed. jw

update has been filed. more to come. also mourning what i thought was a pretty good lead -- re: "popcorn-maker" -- which barely got a chance to see the light of day. jw

very good. i'm glad you pointed that out, as there are those who might jump to conclusions. jw

i wouldn't read too much into that as far as looking up available listings. i shall leave it at that. jw

since photographers get little recognition on this board, like to send kudos to AP's David Duprey for taking an amusing shot. jw

but they are ahead of schedule this year. this year's camp closed on June 11. last year's camp closed on June 13. 2 days early. jw OOOPS: last year's camp was scheduled to close June 13, but actually ended on June 12 after Jauron canceled last day. still, 1 day earlier than last year.

thanks. of course now everyone's a little confused becasue the threads have been merged. my response was to the orignal poster's heading, which read something to the effect of: "Crowell has a set back" to which i provided my pithy (i saw someone use that word, Dean/Senator?, in a recent post, nice) retort. jw ADD: yeah, thanks lori. now i gotta start explaining my jokes. ... wait, i do that all the time. ... proceed.

and why did doctors have to set Crowell's back, i thought he had a knee injury.