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

[Numark3]

I'm sure you can think, but I'm beginning to question how well.

 

If that's a spelling error, or a typo, why not go fix it so you're effectively communicating.

 

Or do you come from an age group that's lazy and blames everyone else for your own errors?

 

edit: there you go. Now that that's behind us, do you have anything else to contribute?

Haha what are you talking about? I have a autocorrect gone wrong and you are saying blablabla about laziness and blames others. Holy smokes batman

 

I think you need to breath?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Haha what are you talking about? I have a autocorrect gone wrong and you are saying blablabla about laziness and blames others. Holy smokes batman

 

I think you need to breath?

Your claim here is that your autocorrect changed "agreeance", which isn't even a word (you're looking for agreement), to "aggreanacsa" which can't even be confused with a word; and you're disowning your introduction of "things people in your age group do" in your failed attempt at being clever?

[GG]

Haha what are you talking about? I have a autocorrect gone wrong and you are saying blablabla about laziness and blames others. Holy smokes batman

 

I think you need to breath?

 

I know. Imagine the hubbub if you had typed covfefe

[DC Tom]

Haha what are you talking about? I have a autocorrect gone wrong and you are saying blablabla about laziness and blames others. Holy smokes batman

 

I think you need to breath?

 

1) Autocorrect doesn't change imaginary words to imaginary words.

2) Autocorrect would change "a autocorrect" to "an autocorrect."

3) Both prove:

a) you're lazy

b) you blame others.

[RaoulDuke79]

 

1) Autocorrect doesn't change imaginary words to imaginary words.

2) Autocorrect would change "a autocorrect" to "an autocorrect."

3) Both prove:

a) you're lazy

b) you blame others.

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. Edited September 15, 2017 by RaoulDuke79

[Numark3]

Your claim here is that your autocorrect changed "agreeance", which isn't even a word (you're looking for agreement), to "aggreanacsa" which can't even be confused with a word; and you're disowning your introduction of "things people in your age group do" in your failed attempt at being clever?

Haha I'm having slow Friday afternoon at work so I can do this debate!!! Woohoo

 

agreeance is what I attempted to spell! Which is a word and I'll fight anyone on that. Maybe it's just used more commonly in my profession, but I see it plenty! And google agrees WITH ME!!!!

 

And no, it autocorrected my misspelled agreeance (I had two Gs I think) into something crazy!

 

And I don't think I was being clever, but uh pointing out I can't spell (which I can't). I haven't disowned anything, you made some silly jumps to lazy and something else I can't remeber.

 

1) Autocorrect doesn't change imaginary words to imaginary words.

2) Autocorrect would change "a autocorrect" to "an autocorrect."

3) Both prove:

a) you're lazy

b) you blame others.

Who have I blamed? And where! autocorrect does do that (though not in this situation, but don't let that fact get in the way)

 

I know. Imagine the hubbub if you had typed covfefe

The lamestream libtards would make nothing into something!

 

Man both sides have a lot in common, see e.g. this thread

 

 

 

Some of you need to work on not reading stuff into things that aren't there and work on logical reason, or else you may be called ignorant or something worse

Edited September 15, 2017 by Crayola64

[DC Tom]

Haha I'm having slow Friday afternoon at work so I can do this debate!!! Woohoo

 

agreeance is what I attempted to spell! Which is a word and I'll fight anyone on that. Maybe it's just used more commonly in my profession, but I see it plenty! And google agrees WITH ME!!!!

 

And no, it autocorrected my misspelled agreeance (I had two Gs I think) into something crazy!

 

And I don't think I was being clever, but uh pointing out I can't spell (which I can't). I haven't disowned anything, you made some silly jumps to lazy and something else I can't remeber.

Who have I blamed? And where! autocorrect does do that (though not in this situation, but don't let that fact get in the way)

The lamestream libtards would make nothing into something!

 

Man both sides have a lot in common, see e.g. this thread

 

 

 

Some of you need to work on not reading stuff into things that aren't there and work on logical reason, or else you may be called ignorant or something worse

It's a very cromulent word.

[Numark3]

It's a very cromulent word.

Oh my

[DC Tom]

Oh my

I admire your neologodaciousness.

[Numark3]

I admire your neologodaciousness.

You have me wallowing within myself right now.

[Doc Brown]

I never was into ESPN talk shows anyways. Around The Horn, PTI, First Take, this girls show, etc.... My problem with these shows is they cover so many topics that it's impossible for them to have in depth knowledge on most of the topics they discuss.

 

I don't think Hill should be fired as I never thought ESPN should of fired Schilling, Hank Williams Jr., or even Rush Limbaugh way back in the day. Have them apologize and move on.

[grinreaper]

I never was into ESPN talk shows anyways. Around The Horn, PTI, First Take, this girls show, etc.... My problem with these shows is they cover so many topics that it's impossible for them to have in depth knowledge on most of the topics they discuss.

 

I don't think Hill should be fired as I never thought ESPN should of fired Schilling, Hank Williams Jr., or even Rush Limbaugh way back in the day. Have them apologize and move on.

It's "should have". You are too good of a poster to continually make this mistake.

 

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-grammar-mistakes-list

 

21) Of vs. Have

I have a bad habit of overusing a phrase that goes like this: "Shoulda, coulda, woulda." That basically means I regret not doing something, but it's too late to dwell on it now. For example, "I shoulda done my laundry on Sunday."

But "shoulda," "coulda," and "woulda" are all short for something else. What's wrong with this statement?

I should of done my laundry on Sunday.

Since it's so common for us to throw around fake worlds like "shoulda," the above mistake is an easy one to make -- "shoulda" sounds like a shortened version of "should of." But really, "shoulda" is short for "should have." See how it works in these sentences:

I should have done my laundry on Sunday.

I could have taken a shorter route.

I would have gone grocery shopping on Friday, if I had time.

So next time, instead of saying, "shoulda, woulda, coulda," I should probably say, "should've, would've, could've."

[Numark3]

It's "should have". You are too good of a poster to continually make this mistake.

 

https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-grammar-mistakes-list

21) Of vs. Have

I have a bad habit of overusing a phrase that goes like this: "Shoulda, coulda, woulda." That basically means I regret not doing something, but it's too late to dwell on it now. For example, "I shoulda done my laundry on Sunday."

But "shoulda," "coulda," and "woulda" are all short for something else. What's wrong with this statement?

I should of done my laundry on Sunday.

Since it's so common for us to throw around fake worlds like "shoulda," the above mistake is an easy one to make -- "shoulda" sounds like a shortened version of "should of." But really, "shoulda" is short for "should have." See how it works in these sentences:

I should have done my laundry on Sunday.

I could have taken a shorter route.

I would have gone grocery shopping on Friday, if I had time.

So next time, instead of saying, "shoulda, woulda, coulda," I should probably say, "should've, would've, could've."

Teehee you are a smarty pants

[Koko78]

Your claim here is that your autocorrect changed "agreeance", which isn't even a word (you're looking for agreement), to "aggreanacsa" which can't even be confused with a word; and you're disowning your introduction of "things people in your age group do" in your failed attempt at being clever?

 

So... you're not in aggreanacsa with him?

[KD in CA]

so to avoid inferred racism they have to be racist? seems counterproductive

Welcome to liberalism in America.

[Taro T]

Haha I'm having slow Friday afternoon at work so I can do this debate!!! Woohoo

agreeance is what I attempted to spell! Which is a word and I'll fight anyone on that. Maybe it's just used more commonly in my profession, but I see it plenty! And google agrees WITH ME!!!!

And no, it autocorrected my misspelled agreeance (I had two Gs I think) into something crazy!

And I don't think I was being clever, but uh pointing out I can't spell (which I can't). I haven't disowned anything, you made some silly jumps to lazy and something else I can't remeber.

Who have I blamed? And where! autocorrect does do that (though not in this situation, but don't let that fact get in the way)The lamestream libtards would make nothing into something!

Man both sides have a lot in common, see e.g. this thread

Some of you need to work on not reading stuff into things that aren't there and work on logical reason, or else you may be called ignorant or something worse

Likely true. And the Urban Dictionary claims you're a moron.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Back to the topic at hand, however, it's as wrong now as it was when it happened to Schilling. It shouldn't be illegal, but it should be recognized as a ****ty thing to do.

 

It's the moral equivalent of racism.

Edited September 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Just Jack]

 

1) Autocorrect doesn't change imaginary words to imaginary words.

2) Autocorrect would change "a autocorrect" to "an autocorrect."

3) Both prove:

a) you're lazy

b) you blame others.

You haven't seen my phone.

[Numark3]

Likely true. And the Urban Dictionary claims you're a moron.

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

Edited September 16, 2017 by Crayola64

[DC Tom]

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.

[reddogblitz]

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.

[Numark3]

 

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 September 16, 2017 by Crayola64

[Taro T]

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.

[Numark3]

 

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.

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Google says cromulent is a word, too.

[Taro T]

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.

[Numark3]

 

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 September 16, 2017 by Crayola64

[DC Tom]

 

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.

[Numark3]

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

Edited September 16, 2017 by Crayola64

[Taro T]

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.

[JoPar_v2]

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?

[grinreaper]

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.

[Nanker]

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!

[RaoulDuke79]

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

Ain't noby got time for tjat.

[Rob's House]

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.

[Augie]

Does Jamele Hill use that word?

[/dev/null]

Refresh my memory. Who was Trump's Final Four picks?

I must have missed the ESPN Presidential Bracket show in 2017

[DC Tom]

Refresh my memory. Who was Trump's Final Four picks?

 

I believe he picked Bavaria State to annihilate Guernica in the finals.

[boyst]

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

[B-Man]

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

Linda Cohn lamented

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?