jr1 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Shaun King is a white man pretending to be black like the 90s rap group Young Black Teenagers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 LOL she got teabagged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martifal Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 The fact that he and his family ruined her career with lies is nothing short of despicable. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 What's your agenda? i had typed up a good response on my tablet and it restarted. wtf... here we go again my agenda is simple. i am tired of the societal tolerance for weakness. for political correction, and SJW's. I am tired of society embracing self embellishment and instant gratification state and Dipping Dots. I am tired of Octothorpes being used and excused as activism. I am tired of ignorance being pandered to the masses as factual material. i am tired of irresponsibility of personal actions. conversely i am tired of ageism, sexism, racism, willfull ignorance, race baiting, hate speech, and anti religion. It is par for the course of history that journalism be used to address matters of all societal influence. From politics and Opinion Editorials - journalism is a valuable tool. however, with Shaun King, a blatant race baiter, a blatant **** stirrer, the threshold falls a little further. remove politics from this argument before you even begin to think it relates to what i am saying. also, remove the that racism matters to my statements. it does not make one bit of difference of the skin color of any man in any place - journalism included. the quality of his article and his statements for an op ed is low. it is poor. it is so provocative that it is pathetic. but that is his modus operandi and that of his company at the NYDN. Society has allowed this to happen. instead of offering insight or objectionable conversation it is simply a statement, a reply and than an attack of this reply. one can no longer disagree with pop culture phenomena without being called a hater, or other such negative convolution. there are many cases of this as example and without going further in to a rabbit hole or being accused of straying to PPP we will use CTE. CTE has no direct link and correlation to head trauma. yet, according to the media, according to the movie, according to perception, it does. and if you say you disagree you often are labeled as ignorant. this is true with you. i had simply stated in one thread months ago that CTE is not something i care to discuss when the thread was about a player who had recently passed. i had said that there was no proof that football had any medical impact to his death (physically, not mentally because i am a strong supporter of mental health and its awareness and that situational and other forms are depression are serious matters). your reply was contrite. you simply replied to my statement as "its no surprise you think this way." and with your slighted flame you embraced what is all too popular in modern culture. you are factually wrong but socially correct. THAT is what my agenda is. you are factually wrong as no direct correlation has been proven to repeated head trauma, let alone football activity. however, society believes it does and many will say that tests have proven players have it, when the only definitive test is postmortem (that means dead). accurate tests, including the MRI are conclusive at best. so that's my agenda. the societal embrace of societal arguments trumpeting factual proof. in conclusion, i have offered my opinion. and, as always with you i wonder yours. so often you play the contrarian to an argument simply quipping out a response. never do you engage in an actual conversation - which is laughable. if you need to get educated on such matters to participate, by all means do that before continuing to further disrupt actual conversation. you're welcome. I believe that this race baiter argument is garbage, the second article references the same info. Is it true? I'm confused because if it was sworn testimony about the cover ups etc why wasn't there some kind of verdict? Maybe the judge had UT seasons? Who knows and I realize that's conjecture . the method on which the information was delivered is entirely different, whilst the second argument includes many times that the entire bit of article was based upon allegations. further, the dailybeast is no where near as known as nydn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 i had typed up a good response on my tablet and it restarted. wtf... here we go again my agenda is simple. i am tired of the societal tolerance for weakness. for political correction, and SJW's. I am tired of society embracing self embellishment and instant gratification state and Dipping Dots. I am tired of Octothorpes being used and excused as activism. I am tired of ignorance being pandered to the masses as factual material. i am tired of irresponsibility of personal actions. conversely i am tired of ageism, sexism, racism, willfull ignorance, race baiting, hate speech, and anti religion. It is par for the course of history that journalism be used to address matters of all societal influence. From politics and Opinion Editorials - journalism is a valuable tool. however, with Shaun King, a blatant race baiter, a blatant **** stirrer, the threshold falls a little further. remove politics from this argument before you even begin to think it relates to what i am saying. also, remove the that racism matters to my statements. it does not make one bit of difference of the skin color of any man in any place - journalism included. the quality of his article and his statements for an op ed is low. it is poor. it is so provocative that it is pathetic. but that is his modus operandi and that of his company at the NYDN. Society has allowed this to happen. instead of offering insight or objectionable conversation it is simply a statement, a reply and than an attack of this reply. one can no longer disagree with pop culture phenomena without being called a hater, or other such negative convolution. there are many cases of this as example and without going further in to a rabbit hole or being accused of straying to PPP we will use CTE. CTE has no direct link and correlation to head trauma. yet, according to the media, according to the movie, according to perception, it does. and if you say you disagree you often are labeled as ignorant. this is true with you. i had simply stated in one thread months ago that CTE is not something i care to discuss when the thread was about a player who had recently passed. i had said that there was no proof that football had any medical impact to his death (physically, not mentally because i am a strong supporter of mental health and its awareness and that situational and other forms are depression are serious matters). your reply was contrite. you simply replied to my statement as "its no surprise you think this way." and with your slighted flame you embraced what is all too popular in modern culture. you are factually wrong but socially correct. THAT is what my agenda is. you are factually wrong as no direct correlation has been proven to repeated head trauma, let alone football activity. however, society believes it does and many will say that tests have proven players have it, when the only definitive test is postmortem (that means dead). accurate tests, including the MRI are conclusive at best. so that's my agenda. the societal embrace of societal arguments trumpeting factual proof. in conclusion, i have offered my opinion. and, as always with you i wonder yours. so often you play the contrarian to an argument simply quipping out a response. never do you engage in an actual conversation - which is laughable. if you need to get educated on such matters to participate, by all means do that before continuing to further disrupt actual conversation. you're welcome. the method on which the information was delivered is entirely different, whilst the second argument includes many times that the entire bit of article was based upon allegations. further, the dailybeast is no where near as known as nydn To the contrary, I offer my opinion on plenty of subjects here and elsewhere. But when it comes to ideologues like you, I often choose not to waste my time since there is no moving you from your preconceived notions that are often comically wrong minded. I'd just rather let you revel in your own ill conceived self righteousness. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 You're all over the place in this thread, foaming at the mouth to defend Manning. What exactly is your point, because I'm not talking about the article or the author. All I'm saying is Manning did it, got someone fired because of it, and it's been well known for 20 years that this all happened. I haven't read the OP article, because I don't need to. I alluded to this very incident in one of the Cam threads days ago, it's not new nor is it controversial information. What I said then, and it applies here, is that this incident shouldn't be forgotten and should in fact be stapled to any report that claims Manning is a paragon of virtue. He's not. In fact, he's quite shady. He's just good at throwing a football and managing his image. it's not that manning did it. i'm sure he did. you'll see. check your PM. turns out we both have inside knowledge of Manning. either way...newton's unsportsmanship has nothing to do with manning's. two wrongs don't make a right. my issue with this is the article. compare the first article to the second. you're well versed in writing and journalism. you'll see a very, very big difference in the presentation and not just the article. i respect your opinion, so i'd like to hear your viewpoint between the two. small key words, to me, are instrumental. To the contrary, I offer my opinion on plenty of subjects here and elsewhere. But when it comes to ideologues like you, I often choose not to waste my time since there is no moving you from your preconceived notions that are often comically wrong minded. I'd just rather let you revel in your own ill conceived self righteousness. Carry on. so, in other words, i'll continue to be factually correct and you'll be socially correct. dance on, Matilda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 it's not that manning did it. i'm sure he did. you'll see. check your PM. turns out we both have inside knowledge of Manning. either way...newton's unsportsmanship has nothing to do with manning's. two wrongs don't make a right. my issue with this is the article. compare the first article to the second. you're well versed in writing and journalism. you'll see a very, very big difference in the presentation and not just the article. i respect your opinion, so i'd like to hear your viewpoint between the two. small key words, to me, are instrumental. so, in other words, i'll continue to be factually correct and you'll be socially correct. dance on, Matilda. Yeah OK. Just like handing a football to kids at stadiums is against NFL rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Yeah OK. Just like handing a football to kids at stadiums is against NFL rules. i should have said throwing the football to the stands. which is against the rules. even then, i'll concede i was wrong. let me help you here, son. http://powerstates.com/10-cognitive-thinking-errors/ and...i gracefully bow,, accept my applause, thank the crowd and offer my sentiment of withdrawal [boyst exits the stage].<scene> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 It would have been great if Manning went on to be a spokesman for Lipton teabags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 i should have said throwing the football to the stands. which is against the rules. even then, i'll concede i was wrong. let me help you here, son. http://powerstates.com/10-cognitive-thinking-errors/ and...i gracefully bow,, accept my applause, thank the crowd and offer my sentiment of withdrawal [boyst exits the stage].<scene> BS! You made a incorrect point about handing footballs to kids because it was Cam Newton and you have a ridiculous preconceived bias against him that has reached the level of comedy. Total intellectual dishonesty on your part. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) uh, where did i oppose anything that happened? i opposed the article simply based on its poor form and authenticity. When you posted "what he wrote was not true," I thought clarification may be in order. Edited February 13, 2016 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 When you posted "what he wrote was not true," I thought clarification may be in order. He's at least 3 versions or his argument past that one. It's in the past. Quit with the theatrics already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 He's at least 3 versions or his argument past that one. It's in the past. Quit with the theatrics already. Theatrics?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Theatrics?!? /sarcasm Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted February 13, 2016 Author Share Posted February 13, 2016 Another angle (though Clay Travis isn't the most respected writer either) http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike in Horseheads Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Another angle (though Clay Travis isn't the most respected writer either) http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316 Now he's got a agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Now he's got a agenda. I was going to say the exact same thing. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 Another angle (though Clay Travis isn't the most respected writer either) http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/peyton-manning-newest-target-of-fake-internet-outrage-brigade-021316 that is a much more thought out piece but still sensational. the points on the NDA are accurate. This reminds me of the Paula Dean non-story a few years ago. BS! You made a incorrect point about handing footballs to kids because it was Cam Newton and you have a ridiculous preconceived bias against him that has reached the level of comedy. Total intellectual dishonesty on your part. Carry on. i already took my applause and celebration. you want an encore? [intro to enter sandman begins] i was wrong in stating that handing footballs to attendees was illegal. throwing footballs to the attendees is. i admitted i was wrong in that thread. i've been wrong before and will be again. thank you for pointing that out. when you form an original opinion i will check it for factual accuracy, if you request. [lights dim] thank you, thank you, we will be back! we will be back! we love you Grand Rapids!"[music stops] He's at least 3 versions or his argument past that one. It's in the past. Quit with the theatrics already. what part do you need help understanding? you can't just paint with a broad stroke brush a one sided argument and sell it as a factual piece as King did. the arguments i am making have nothing to do with Manning's behavior. it has everything to do with King's approach. When you posted "what he wrote was not true," I thought clarification may be in order. what he wrote was not true in that he presented and said his evidence - the affidavit by the plaintiff is entirely true. its one sided in a two sided case and has serious issues with credibility as such - mostly pertaining to the NDA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 ... manning is hardly a hero. he's the garth brooks of football. how did they do that? everything is alleged. the court rulings, like them or not, are final. she sued and she lost. we don't know the facts, this guy doesn't either. :sad face: She sued and the Mannings elected to settle after the Polk County judge made his findings. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 what part do you need help understanding? you can't just paint with a broad stroke brush a one sided argument and sell it as a factual piece as King did. the arguments i am making have nothing to do with Manning's behavior. it has everything to do with King's approach. Sorry, I don't need help understanding anything. The arguments you are making are whatever random crap you can throw out; hopefully with enough of that you'll land on one that actually makes sense. There's really no point in this anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts