Shots Fired! Tim Graham calls out Vic Carruci for Posing with The Biscuit

[FappyTheClown]

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, corta765 said:

Whether your religious or not the biblical verse about throwing the first stone at those with sin is pretty true here. 

 

Interesting thought:  Couldn't TG's criticism of Vic being in the picture with Bennett extend to Jimbo inviting him in the first place?   

 

If Corney's such menace to society and all-round moral scourge, why would a highly religious couple like Jim and Jill even associate with him?   My God, children may have attended that golf outing.   How would you ever explain backdoor action gone bad to them...    

[4merper4mer]

57 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He was not convicted of rape, but he was convicted and he clearly raped her.

So he's not a convicted rapist?

[teef]

I’m willing to bet money that Bennett picked that girl up at an Applebee’s bar. That’s just how those evenings tend to go. 

[K-9]

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Talk about parsing language and a weak semantic approach.

 

Again.........it wasn't by any means necessarily a "crime he didn't commit".    In fact he served time, which indicates a good degree of guilt.

 

Don't quit your day job, counselor.

 

Like you didn’t know I was clearly talking about Graham’s false report about being Bennett being convicted of RAPE. It was clear to everyone else here but not you for some reason. Your blind defense of everything Graham and the subsequent bashing of anyone who calls him out renders you incapable of reasonable debate on the subject. 

 

I understand why you need to lump me in with anyone that would defend Bennett’s abhorrent behavior, but I didn’t and never have. Just more of your dishonest approach to debate. 

 

As as far as I’m concerned, our particular exchange on the matter is finished. 

[John from Riverside]

Just for the record I am not condoning any of this.....simply put Bennet messed up regardless of plea to a lesser charge (I have recently seen someone go through this so I understand how the workings of the legal process can sometimes skew what actually happened and frankly I give THAT person no pass either cuz he was stupid)

 

but

 

Did Bennet not serve the time for his admitted crime?   At what point does it not be ok to bring these things out the the national front by a sportswriter?  

 

I think what Tim Graham did was wrong.....just like what Biscuit did all those years ago was also wrong.   Who is Tim Graham to bring that out to the fore front just because he feels like it?  He is not reporting legit news......but he is using his standing as a journalist to bring it up for no apparent reason.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

 

[DrDawkinstein]

As the Dude would say: "You're not wrong, Timmy, you're just an a-hole".

[K-9]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

The point was not Biscuit's guilt or innocence. But Graham throwing Carucci under a bus while at a charity event. Don't get distracted. Why did Graham wait for that moment to bring up Bennett's history? He had 20 years to do it.

 

Perhaps it’s because the #metoo movement is topical combined with Graham’s reluctance to acquaint himself with facts before spouting off.

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Where are you getting that anyone is defending a sexual assault, much less claiming the guy is innocent?

 

You appear to be creating positions so you can argue against them

 

 

Lot of that going on in here.

[Gugny]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

 

That is one ignorant mother !@#$er.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

That is one ignorant mother !@#$er.

 

 

Tim Graham just said "woke".

 

[billsfan1959]

39 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

 

Of course it was about Vic. Graham said, "Strange to see my coworker with his arm around a convicted rapist." No different than if he had said, " Strange to see my coworker wearing a dress." It was about publicly passing judgment on what Vic was doing. Who knows the reason why? Given what we know about Graham, we can only assume that the reason was petty and about propping up his very fragile ego in some way.

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by billsfan1959

[Rico]

56 minutes ago, Rico said:

Interesting take, thanks. Something going on behind the scenes led to this, no doubt.

I think Russ Brandon was fired for some truly heinous, scum-of-the-earth, subhuman actions. Could be that Vic fought hard for some reason with the editors to keep the truth from being released, and TG didn’t appreciate it.

 

[4merper4mer]

23 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

Load of Mularkey.

[BillsFanForever19]

Maybe Graham's looking to get one of those buyouts that Jerry Sullivan and Bucky Gleason got...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

The fact that it was Jim Kelly's charity event seems entirely inconsequential.    It wasn't about the event.   Nobody asked why JK invited a person who had done time after sex assault claims.    In 2018 people are getting called out for their past sexual assaults.   The perpetrators just gotta' deal with it.   Consequences.

 

I disagree that it's inconsequential.  The choice of context a media figure makes for a call-out is relevant.  If nothing else, it influences the respect and access Graham has with those involved in the event, and influences reader perception of Graham.

 

You're quite correct that no one asked why JK invited a guest convicted of sexual misconduct, who served time for it 20 years ago.  I frankly would have respected Graham if he posed that question in that light.  It's a relevant question for today - when someone has been convicted and served time for a crime, when is it relevant to revisit, and when is it relevant to allow them to move on?  That would be hard-hitting journalism.

 

In this case though, that isn't what happened.  Graham didn't tweet "Why has a guy who once faced felony rape charges been invited as an honored guest at a charity event?"  He called out Carrucci as his colleague.  We both seem to agree (despite Graham's later denial) that it was, in fact, a call-out of Vic Carrucci, likely due to something going on behind the scenes.  For the rest, we disagree.  You seem to see Bennett's 20 year old conviction as "fair game" to revisit and fair game to mischaracterize; I feel that the whole crime/punishment/debt to society paid thing is meaningless if we don't mark the debt "paid" at some point and move on (if Bennett had not been charged and served time and been sued at the time, the case might differ).   I also feel accuracy is important to a serious journalist - convicted of sexual misconduct (misdemeanor) is not the same legally as convicted of rape (felony).   You say the fact that it's JK's charity event is inconsequential; I say it's a douche move by Graham to use JK's charity event as his platform for throwing mud at Carrucci and Bennett.

 

 

34 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

 

That's revisionist.    Either Graham can't choose appropriate words carefully (in which case he's in the wrong field - but we all know he's quite capable of using words very well), or, when he chooses to call out his colleague Carrucci for posing with his arm around a "convicted rapist", he's doing so because it is indeed about Vic.

 

Otherwise why not just leave Vic and his bro-hug pose out of it and zero in on his real point?

 

[billsfan1959]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Otherwise why not just leave Vic and his bro-hug pose out of it and zero in on his real point?

 

 

His real point is on the top of his head...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

The fact that it was Jim Kelly's charity event seems entirely inconsequential.    It wasn't about the event.   Nobody asked why JK invited a person who had done time after sex assault claims.    In 2018 people are getting called out for their past sexual assaults.   The perpetrators just gotta' deal with it.   Consequences.

 

Dude, you're so woke.

 

I mean you're woke the !@#$ up woke.

 

I wish I was as woke as you are.

 

26 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Load of Mularkey.

 

haha graham beat me to the woke thing.

 

he so woke yo.

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by joesixpack

[Delete This Account]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

What I don't get is why so many writers from The News, while good writers, feel that have the right to act like complete jerks when on social media or other platforms where they interact directly with fans.  Graham is one; while I'm not on Twitter I emailed him once to comment on a story he wrote and got comments back that were on a grade school level, about how he didn't care about my opinion of his story, etc.  A recent thread here about Sullivan and Gleason had John Wawrow weighing in, and he specifically indicated he feels he is snarky and his comments were frankly insulting towards folks who wanted to engage in an actual dialog.  And of course Sullivan is legendary, as is Gleason, for their animosity towards fans.

 

Shout out to sport writers:  You're not that important.  Doctors are important.  Nurses.  Teachers.  Police officers and firemen.  You?  Not so much.  Yes, you are gifted in writing (I like much of what these guys write, although the style and the personal insults etc. were my objections to Sullivan and Gleason) but that does not give you the right to act like temperamental three year olds who have their favorite toy taken away when a reader doesn't agree and dares to express their opinion.  If you have to act that way, either grow up or stay off social media.  Ultimately it's the reader that is your consumer; you don't have a consumer you don't have a job (maybe Sullivan and Gleason just learned that).

 

 

i've been snarky since i joined this board many moons ago.

i am snarky to those whom i have little time for, given the things they've posted.

i've engaged plenty with people in "actual dialog."

in fact, i'm doing so now.

 

which is it? i don't think you're giving a "shout out to sports writer."

 

also never said i was all that important. in fact, i've often noted the opposite, given that my wife is a teacher.

and yet, you're the one that keeps mentioning me and my colleagues.

 

actually, it's credibility.

we get readers because we have established that one thing in our career. otherwise, i don't give two craps whether you like me.

 

jw

 

 

[Bob Chandler's Hands]

15 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

I had not previously heard of this charge, and consequent nickname, as I left the area the year before and did not return until 2012. 

 

So I just read about the charges and ruling and whatnot; yikes. Put the Biscuit up there with Jim Kelly as sports heroes in Blo who were scumbags off the field. ALLEGEDLY...

All the families of the  babies and children who's lives were saved as a result of Hunter's Hope beg to differ with you. 

[Infinitum]

16 hours ago, Bad Things said:

Convicted rapist?

 

He was convicted of unnatural sex acts.  Put it in the bum...

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

i've been snarky since i joined this board many moons ago.

i am snarky to those whom i have little time for, given the things they've posted.

i've engaged plenty with people in "actual dialog."

in fact, i'm doing so now.

 

which is it? i don't think you're giving a "shout out to sports writer."

 

also never said i was all that important. in fact, i've often noted the opposite, given that my wife is a teacher.

and yet, you're the one that keeps mentioning me and my colleagues.

 

actually, it's credibility.

we get readers because we have established that one thing in our career. otherwise, i don't give two craps whether you like me.

 

jw

 

 

Thanks for engaging John.  I appreciate that.  And I have always enjoyed your writing.  I mention you and your colleagues because they are the subject of the threads.  And I really fail to understand why being snarky  or condescending or at times flat out insulting to your reader when engaging on social media seems appropriate. 

 

I think you're right on credibility.  I think you're wrong on whether your likability has an effect on readership.  If I have your profession right, you are dependent on readers to maintain your position.  If you piss people off unnecessarily, does that help or hurt your numbers?  I suspect it hurts, does it not?

[Delete This Account]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Thanks for engaging John.  I appreciate that.  And I have always enjoyed your writing.  I mention you and your colleagues because they are the subject of the threads.  And I really fail to understand why being snarky  or condescending or at times flat out insulting to your reader when engaging on social media seems appropriate. 

 

I think you're right on credibility.  I think you're wrong on whether your likability has an effect on readership.  If I have your profession right, you are dependent on readers to maintain your position.  If you piss people off unnecessarily, does that help or hurt your numbers?  I suspect it hurts, does it not?

 

some people like snark.

some don't.

i'll mark you down as "a don't."

 

jw

[Big Turk]

16 hours ago, Idandria said:

Seems like an unprofessional cheap shot at a coworker in a public forum. There are like 5 different guys I’m that photo.

 

 But in the age of #meToo maybe he thinks it’s a legit gripe? 

 

Maybe he is a feminist 

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Like you didn’t know I was clearly talking about Graham’s false report about being Bennett being convicted of RAPE. It was clear to everyone else here but not you for some reason. Your blind defense of everything Graham and the subsequent bashing of anyone who calls him out renders you incapable of reasonable debate on the subject. 

 

I understand why you need to lump me in with anyone that would defend Bennett’s abhorrent behavior, but I didn’t and never have. Just more of your dishonest approach to debate. 

 

As as far as I’m concerned, our particular exchange on the matter is finished. 

 

 

Look I know what YOU and TG were both trying to say.    TG was saying he was surprised that Vic was huggin it up with a guy who was jailed for sexual assault.    You meant he wasn't convicted of rape.   But what you both said was technically and equally wrong because of your choice of words.   

 

The point is that people here get upset with the media..........usually for pretty accurate takes..........and their childish response is usually to try to assassinate the character of those reporters.........which is almost always nastier than what the reporter was saying.     Look at some of your own takes in this thread.   You don't know Tim Graham.

 

As for trying to point out that I can be a jerk on here..........you will get no resistance from me on that so save your keystrokes. ?  I'm just doing my part to help you and others realize that perhaps you shouldn't be casting too many stones based on your exaggerated behavior here.  

[DrDawkinstein]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Look I know what YOU and TG were both trying to say.    TG was saying he was surprised that Vic was huggin it up with a guy who was jailed for sexual assault.    You meant he wasn't convicted of rape.   But what you both said was technically and equally wrong because of your choice of words.   

 

The point is that people here get upset with the media..........usually for pretty accurate takes..........and their childish response is usually to try to assassinate the character of those reporters.........which is almost always nastier than what the reporter was saying.     Look at some of your own takes in this thread.   You don't know Tim Graham.

 

As for trying to point out that I can be a jerk on here..........you will get no resistance from me on that so save your keystrokes. ?  I'm just doing my part to help you and others realize that perhaps you shouldn't be casting too many stones based on your exaggerated behavior here.  

 

I honestly dont think we know Timmy's true intentions. Nor do I think Timmy even knows his true intentions, and instead fired off something he knew would generate clicks and retweets, without much thought.

 

Was he bashing Vic for hanging out with Biscuit?

Was he bashing Biscuit for his past?

Or was he bashing the current "woke" climate, and insinuating that we obviously dont care about Biscuit's past issues so therefore we shouldnt care about current issues?

 

It's all up for interpretation.

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I honestly dont think we know Timmy's true intentions. Nor do I think Timmy even knows his true intentions, and instead fired off something he knew would generate clicks and retweets, without much thought.

 

Was he bashing Vic for hanging out with Biscuit?

Was he bashing Biscuit for his past?

Or was he bashing the current "woke" climate, and insinuating that we obviously dont care about Biscuit's past issues so therefore we shouldnt care about current issues?

 

It's all up for interpretation.

BADOL is right though.  Why should a paid journalist trying to maintain relevancy in the 21st century as a public figure be held to a higher standard for clarity than JimKellyFan69 on an anonymous message board?

 

Oh.  

[corta765]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Interesting thought:  Couldn't TG's criticism of Vic being in the picture with Bennett extend to Jimbo inviting him in the first place?   

 

If Corney's such menace to society and all-round moral scourge, why would a highly religious couple like Jim and Jill even associate with him?   My God, children may have attended that golf outing.   How would you ever explain backdoor action gone bad to them...    

 

Good point. Just feels really out of place either way given the circumstances of the event.

 

And on a side note at what point if someone is convicted of something and they pay their debt to society are they allowed to function? Are they allowed to go to normal things like this or are they suppose to hide away at all costs? (All of this meant as a true question not in anyway snark. My mother hates Mike Vick and felt he should never have been allowed to return, I said he paid his time and if he chooses to return its his right)

[BadLandsMeanie]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I honestly dont think we know Timmy's true intentions. Nor do I think Timmy even knows his true intentions, and instead fired off something he knew would generate clicks and retweets, without much thought.

 

Was he bashing Vic for hanging out with Biscuit?

Was he bashing Biscuit for his past?

Or was he bashing the current "woke" climate, and insinuating that we obviously dont care about Biscuit's past issues so therefore we shouldnt care about current issues?

 

It's all up for interpretation.

To me I think it is plain that he is moving background conflict at TBN into the public eye.

 

It is for sure a shot at Carrucci. Maybe the others just got in the way or he wanted to smear them also.

 

A man who has his professional life linked to his twitter account does not tweet without thinking. Unless he is very incautious. 

The original tweet is now "unavailable". The plot thickens!

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I disagree that it's inconsequential.  The choice of context a media figure makes for a call-out is relevant.  If nothing else, it influences the respect and access Graham has with those involved in the event, and influences reader perception of Graham.

 

You're quite correct that no one asked why JK invited a guest convicted of sexual misconduct, who served time for it 20 years ago.  I frankly would have respected Graham if he posed that question in that light.  It's a relevant question for today - when someone has been convicted and served time for a crime, when is it relevant to revisit, and when is it relevant to allow them to move on?  That would be hard-hitting journalism.

 

In this case though, that isn't what happened.  Graham didn't tweet "Why has a guy who once faced felony rape charges been invited as an honored guest at a charity event?"  He called out Carrucci as his colleague.  We both seem to agree (despite Graham's later denial) that it was, in fact, a call-out of Vic Carrucci, likely due to something going on behind the scenes.  For the rest, we disagree.  You seem to see Bennett's 20 year old conviction as "fair game" to revisit and fair game to mischaracterize; I feel that the whole crime/punishment/debt to society paid thing is meaningless if we don't mark the debt "paid" at some point and move on (if Bennett had not been charged and served time and been sued at the time, the case might differ).   I also feel accuracy is important to a serious journalist - convicted of sexual misconduct (misdemeanor) is not the same legally as convicted of rape (felony).   You say the fact that it's JK's charity event is inconsequential; I say it's a douche move by Graham to use JK's charity event as his platform for throwing mud at Carrucci and Bennett.

 

 

 

That's revisionist.    Either Graham can't choose appropriate words carefully (in which case he's in the wrong field - but we all know he's quite capable of using words very well), or, when he chooses to call out his colleague Carrucci for posing with his arm around a "convicted rapist", he's doing so because it is indeed about Vic.

 

Otherwise why not just leave Vic and his bro-hug pose out of it and zero in on his real point?

 

 

 

Graham wasn't re-arresting Bennett he was merely commenting on him.

 

In criminal proceedings, Bennett paid his debt........as has OJ Simpson.

 

 Whether the court of public opinion feels what they paid was fair is another matter.

 

If you've marked their debts paid I'd be a bit surprised........but maybe.

 

You seem to be kinda' grudgey about perceived offenses that seem far less severe..........like columnists with negative takes on a Bills organization that missed the playoffs for 17 straight years and hasn't had a home playoff game in nearly a quarter century.......for example.?

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

And not convicted of rape.  Believe what you want; don't let facts alter your opinion.  And I say that thinking the guy is a scumball for his involvement in this.. 

 

Judge WEO.

[The Poojer]

Timmah was probably on ambien

[DrDawkinstein]

11 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

To me I think it is plain that he is moving background conflict at TBN into the public eye.

 

It is for sure a shot at Carrucci. Maybe the others just got in the way or he wanted to smear them also.

 

A man who has his professional life linked to his twitter account does not tweet without thinking. Unless he is very incautious. 

The original tweet is now "unavailable". The plot thickens!

 

Are you familiar with Timmy's posting history here, and infamous tweeting? It's more reacting than thinking.

[BADOLBILZ]

28 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

BADOL is right though.  Why should a paid journalist trying to maintain relevancy in the 21st century as a public figure be held to a higher standard for clarity than JimKellyFan69 on an anonymous message board?

 

Oh.  

 

Clarity from the "relevant" who provide commentary on sports?   Where?   Stephen A or Max?

 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Clarity from the "relevant" who provide commentary on sports?   Where?   Stephen A or Max?

 

Ha ha, TG isn't Stephen A Smith bad.  Awesome take.  Speaks to his credibility, really.

[mileena]

17 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 

Here's the background. Bernie Kosar tweets a photo from Jim Kelly's charity event that included Vic C posing next to Cornelius Bennett.

 

Graham retweets it with that caption. 

 

In another tweet TG claims he isn't taking a shot at Carruci. I think of course it is, and right out on public. What do you think?

 

 

 

Screenshots? Links? This thread is meaningless without them. SMH.

[folz]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

The fact that it was Jim Kelly's charity event seems entirely inconsequential.    It wasn't about the event.   Nobody asked why JK invited a person who had done time after sex assault claims.    In 2018 people are getting called out for their past sexual assaults.   The perpetrators just gotta' deal with it.   Consequences.

 

As do their innocent families too, I guess? I'm sure that was a difficult time for CB's family (of his own making, of course) and I'm sure that they would rather not have to relive it, and Tim putting it out in the public again after 20 years, or whatever, could dredge a lot of stuff back up for them. No one is condoning any crime that Cornelius committed (to whatever level the crime was, none of us know), instead we are condemning TG for using an ugly incident for his own personal agenda, without caring who he may be hurting (bad press for Kelly's event, VC and whatever that beef is, Cornelius' family and friends, etc.). This wasn't an article discussing sexual abuse, rape, etc. in which he used the incident as an example, it was a petty tweet to either get some sort of revenge or to get himself noticed. 

 

I mean what is actually accomplished by calling out a 20-year old sexual assault case that was already public (in the papers, etc. at the time). It's not like it was an unknown or unpunished crime that he was bringing to light. He was using a horrible moment from one person's life to try and get back at another person. Let's not paint it as TG being a benevolent social watchdog.

Edited June 5, 2018 by folz

[PromoTheRobot]

Why did Timmah delete the tweet if he didn't mean anything by it?

[BringBackOrton]

19 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Why did Timmah delete the tweet if he didn't mean anything by it?

The world was not ready for his revelations.

[BADOLBILZ]

19 minutes ago, folz said:

 

As do their innocent families too, I guess? I'm sure that was a difficult time for CB's family (of his own making, of course) and I'm sure that they would rather not have to relive it, and Tim putting it out in the public again after 20 years, or whatever, could dredge a lot of stuff back up for them. No one is condoning any crime that Cornelius committed (to whatever level the crime was, none of us know), instead we are condemning TG for using an ugly incident for his own personal agenda, without caring who he may be hurting (bad press for Kelly's event, VC and whatever that beef is, Cornelius' family and friends, etc.). This wasn't an article discussing sexual abuse, rape, etc. in which he used the incident as an example, it was a petty tweet to either get some sort of revenge or to get himself noticed. 

 

I mean what is actually accomplished by calling out a 20-year old sexual assault case that was already public (in the papers, etc. at the time). It's not like it was an unknown or unpunished crime that he was bringing to light. He was using a horrible moment from one person's life to try and get back at another person. Let's not paint it as TG being a benevolent social watchdog.

 

 

Are the potentially far reaching consequences of criminal acts just dawning upon you?

 

Using a horrible moment from Bennett's life?  Interesting take.