Jump to content

ESPN *tried* to take Jemele Hill off the air...and failed.

dpberr

By dpberr
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

reddogblitz Hall of Famer

reddogblitz

Posted
Posted

I hate when autocorrect changes my correct words to other correct words that throw throw the conversation out of context and makes me look like an idiot. I'm not saying I'm and idiot, but I could be perceived as an idiot.

You gotta proof read your post before hitting send. Maybe Even fix what's wrong too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Numark3 Veteran

Numark3

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

But...you are a moron.

Haha probably, it wouldn't surprise me. But I wouldn't call any of you a moron based on a page of forum posts lol. Especially based on an autocorrect, but it's an argument y'all want to have.

 

Agreeance is a word - deal with it. I'll keep my liberal nice job though, someone spell checks for me to be honest! I truly can't spell!

You gotta proof read your post before hitting send. Maybe Even fix what's wrong too.

Absolutely...when it matters, not on forum posts lol. Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taro T Veteran

Taro T

Posted
Posted

I can show you 500 judicial opinions with "agreeance" so gtfo :). So please don't tell me it's not a word. Supreme Court justices use it, federal court of apppeals, and so forth... it's not an argument you want to have, so don't call me a moron unless you want to have it.

Judicial opionions, not urban dictionary child

But...you are a moron.

Haha probably. But I wouldn't call any of you a moron based on a page of forum posts lol. Especially based on an autocorrect, but it's an argument y'all want to have.

Agreeance is a word - deal with it. I'll keep my liberal nice job though, someone spell checks for me to be honest! I truly can't spell!

 

Absolutely...when it matters, not on forum posts lol.

Well, if an authority as highly regarded as Google says it's a word, who's to argue? Especially seeing as how your day job is arguing before the Supreme Court. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numark3 Veteran

Numark3

Posted
Posted

 

Well, if an authority as highly regarded as Google says it's a word, who's to argue? Especially seeing as how your day job is arguing before the Supreme Court. ;)

Google says it's a word, Supreme Court, court of appeals, what's your point? I thought you were a better poster than jumping into a topic and saying something dumb, but I guess I was wrong. I'll wait Taro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taro T Veteran

Taro T

Posted
Posted

Google says it's a word, Supreme Court, court of appeals, what's your point? I thought you were a better poster than jumping into a topic and saying something dumb, but I guess I was wrong. I'll wait Taro.

Well, as long as Google says it's a word, guess you're cromulent. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Numark3 Veteran

Numark3

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Google says cromulent is a word, too.

I honestly dont care about google (which agrees with me). In my job we use it, there are plenty of judicial opinions that use it. Do i need to cite to one to shut you up? That would be easy... Honestly, I wouldn't get in an argument about whether or not it is a word with me, words and semantics are something I argue about for a living , so I am better than you at it, no offense. Agreeance is a word, and when I am so sober, tomorrow, I'll prove it :)

 

Taro, DC tom, peace till then lol

 

 

Just for a preview, a recent 11th circuit opinion in the past year uses it from a 5 second google search. Cite is U.S. v. Thomas, 656 Fed.Appx 951 ;) ( you can find it here, http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201512101.pdf ) It took 5 seconds, maybe we jsut use it in the legal profession, idk. But we do. And I think we might be right over some goofy TBD forum posters.

 

 

But please keep telling me its not a word lol ( sorry for being an ass, but you both are ignorantly and incorrectly telling me something isn't a word that is, and it's hitting a nerve. I have no idea how this argument began from a joke, other than someone saying it's not a word and 10 people falsely believing it, including you two goofs. Again, I use the word plenty as do others, evidence is in judges and courts using it too. Enough said)

Edited by Crayola64
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

 

I honestly dont care about google (which agrees with me). In my job we use it, there are plenty of judicial opinions that use it. Do i need to cite to one to shut you up? That would be easy... Honestly, I wouldn't get in an argument about whether or not it is a word with me, words and semantics are something I argue about for a living , so I am better than you at it, no offense. Agreeance is a word, and when I am so sober, tomorrow, I'll prove it :)

 

Taro, DC tom, peace till then lol

 

 

Just for a preview, a recent 11th circuit opinion in the past year uses it from a 5 second google search. Cite is U.S. v. Thomas, 656 Fed.Appx 951 ;) ( you can find it here, http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201512101.pdf ) It took 5 seconds, maybe we jsut use it in the legal profession, idk. But we do. And I think we might be right over some goofy TBD forum posters.

 

 

But please keep telling me its not a word lol ( sorry for being an ass, but you both are ignorantly and incorrectly telling me something isn't a word that is, and it's hitting a nerve. I have no idea how this argument began from a joke, other than someone saying it's not a word and 10 people falsely believing it, including you two goofs)

 

It's a perfectly cromulent word, as I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taro T Veteran

Taro T

Posted
Posted

Haha ok. I use it and so do others in my professsion...a lot. Go back to a Simpson's joke. lol you were just joking right!? Like I said, I'm right, you are wrong, it's no big deal. It's a word

Well as long as we're in agreeMENT that you're being daft about an imaginary word, we're all good. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grinreaper Veteran

grinreaper

Posted
Posted

Whoa haven't browsed PPP in a while; are people really in here claiming "agreeance" isn't a word? That's all just trolling right?

Read the whole thread. This issue started out with aggreanacsa being used instead of agreeance. It was claimed that autocorrect was the culprit which is a pretty lame excuse for not proofing ones post. Then it was stated that agreance was the proper spelling. Then it was stated that it wasn't a word. Some pretty smart people are either just busting balls or really have lost a few pencils out of their boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
Posted

Haha ok. I use it and so do others in my professsion...a lot. Go back to a Simpson's joke. lol you were just joking right!? Like I said, I'm right, you are wrong, it's no big deal. It's a word

thats mighty bigly of you. And Neil Gorsuch would agree, no doubt. Ain't that sumpfin!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob's House All Pro

Rob's House

Posted
Posted

It's a pretty shwag word that's only used by pretentious ass holes who want to sound esoteric or, ironically, morons who don't know the difference.

 

In any case, it shouldn't detract from the magnificent display of retardation that Apussaholeski and Freddie Jizzstain put on right before Chester derailed the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boyst Hall of Famer

boyst

Posted
Posted

He is getting **** for not using proper grammar and spelling. Meanwhile, no one gives gives a **** when I make no revisions.

 

This is either good or bad. But he enflamed it much much more by replying to it.

 

I just admit I'm lazy and don't care.

 

Skis ushe jeie uauen lyodbe oduws yeeeepppp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

PJ Media's Stephen Kruiser did an excellent job this week pointing out the double standards employed by ESPN in the Jemele Hill controversy. ESPN executives treated Linda Cohn and Curt Schilling far differently, for similar — or lesser — offenses. In Cohn's case, it was merely acknowledging the point that ESPN is ignoring its constituency, leading to a suspension:

ESPN stalwart
the network's non-sports wander into politics in an interview last spring, noting that the "core group" of viewers who made ESPN so successful were being ignored.

 

 

Schilling was fired outright for retweeting a meme indicating his agreement with North Carolina's bathroom law. Hill, on the other hand, received a reprimand for calling the president of the United States a white supremacist. Hill's non-apology apology only made things worse:

My comments on Twitter expressed my personal beliefs. My regret is that my comments and the public way I made them painted ESPN in an unfair light. My respect for the company and my colleagues remains unconditional.

 

 

Let us be crystal clear on this point: Hill is not sorry that she offended at least half the country. Schilling offended a minority of Americans. Cohn merely acknowledged, without taking a side either way, that some of their audience had bled off because of politics. Schilling got fired; Cohn was suspended; Hill was on the air the very next day.

Is it any wonder that right-thinking people are turning off ES(JW)PN?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...