DMN BLOG...roy williams S telling it like it is

[5Countem5]

I told you it would be fun.

when the most scrutinized player of the last 5 years not named owens calls out ..well..owens....the responses should be vast and all over the place.

You sure he called out Owens? Really?

 

[Rampage]

You sure he called out Owens? Really?

you sure you haven't been posting in this thread for the past 2 hours?

 

[theebs]

You sure he called out Owens? Really?

good point, we will find out tomorrow.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sorry, but you're not applying common sense to a definition.

I've worked with illiterate people. Some of them can read. They can stumble over very basic words. And they can write very basic sentences.

By the dictionary's term, these people would not be illiterate.

If a person could just write his name, and nothing else, then by the dictionary that person couldn't be called illiterate because the dictionary says ... "The condition of being unable to read and write."

But any person who works with illiterate people will tell you that's not the case.

With all due respect, it's very hard to discuss these issues with people who don't have real life experiences. Now maybe this isn't you, and I don't want to demean your experiences. But have you ever worked with illiterate people before?

It's just like people talking about the media fabricating stories, and from where I sit as a reporter, these people don't know what they're talking about. Their experiences are born from television or movies or I don't know what else. But many of them obviously haven't worked at a newsroom or television station or understand how journalists use anonymous sources. It shows a detachment from reality and how things work in the real world.

At any rate, if you are building your argument about literacy and illiteracy on the dictionary's definition and believe there's no wiggle room, I suggest you go find some folks who are considered illiterate and see if they can't read or write AT ALL. And if they are 38 years old, but can only read "See Jane run," and nothing else, by your interpretation of the dictionary's definition, they're not illiterate. Remember, you said, "No wiggle room."

As for the rest of your post, I'm tired of this discourse. If you want to declare Internet victory, have at it.

I'm down by two defeats. How shall I ever bring myself to return to this forum.

Oh, the shame. ...................................

I tutored children in college to pay bills. Some of those kids could not take a study sheet that listed the page that the answer was on and be able to read the page and find the answer. I had to essentially teach them how to read a sentence determine what the nouns and verbs were and look for similar nouns nad verbs on the page in question. the kid was in 7th grade and had already been in a reading class and was in another that year.

all in all it was a very depressing experience and these were with kids whose parents actively participated and encouraged their children's learning. mind you i am not criticizing the teachers. they are fighting the good fight its just a losing battle the way things are.

i am very cognizant of of not only literacy but the process by which a person becomes literate. or not illiterate.

sorry but saying your instead of youre does not qualify someone as being illiterate.

 

[Wrangler87]

In a perfect worl, Roy W 38 would be that leader that we need. I really wish he could play LB.

 

[5Countem5]

you sure you haven't been posting in this thread for the past 2 hours?

Yeah I have but I've still not heard anything from Roy. Have you?

 

[MrMom]

and no i dont take this seriously. i act the pompous *** you dont think i dont know that?

:laugh2:

 

[Clove]

#38 is worried about distractions. How about he worry about covering anyone in the secondary and stop giving up easy touch downs. Learn how to tackle somebody, stop horse-collering and then you can worry about distractions.

Because when that distraction leaves, his *** will still be giving up touch downs.

 

[dcfanatic]

This is the greatest thread ever.

 

[Arch Stanton]

What is it about?

tl;dr

We had....


[youtube]QbQWBTY4co8[/youtube]


....

 

[tyke1doe]

I would expect a reporter to deny, deny and deny that stories are fabricated all the time. It's in your self-interest to fight what everyone knows and maintain some semblance of credibility in your industry.

Not saying you make up stories either, but even being a reporter -you have no more insight into these "stories" than any of us.

Do you?

Your extremes betray you.

In the history of reporting, yes, stories have been fabricated. The Washington Post had a situation where a young lady (can't remember her name right off hand) fabricated a story about a young boy on crack. Won a Pultizer. Had to be revoked because it was later discovered that she lied.

And I'm sure you're familiar with Jason Blair.

But as a routine practice, no, reporters don't make up stories. There's too much at risk to do something like that, especially in this economy.

So here are my reasons for stating that reporters don't make up stories, particularly this story about lockerroom dissent:

1. I'm a reporter, and I'm aware of the news gathering process.
2. I understand how the media uses anonymous sources.
3. Every media outlet I've worked with has specific rules about the use of anonymous sources when they can be used and when they can't be used.
4. It's not in the best interest of a news organization or a reporter to make up sources, especially since it's pretty easy to detect fabrication.
5. The stories about locker room dissension have been verified by
a. Other news outlets (DMN, FWST, FOX, ESPN, Sports Illustrated), all of whom have reporters who cover the Cowboys.
b. Jerry Jones, who said he doesn't think chemistry is a big deal.
c. Other players who have said there's locker room dissension but have tried to downplay it (as we expect they would)
d. Outside observes like Dan Reeves, who just reported that there's a great divide regarding T.O.

So based on the preponderance of evidence, it's pretty safe to conclude that there's no fabrication.

So what are your points? What evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) do you bring to support your argument that reporters have fabricated this story?

 

[tyke1doe]

I tutored children in college to pay bills. Some of those kids could not take a study sheet that listed the page that the answer was on and be able to read the page and find the answer. I had to essentially teach them how to read a sentence determine what the nouns and verbs were and look for similar nouns nad verbs on the page in question. the kid was in 7th grade and had already been in a reading class and was in another that year.

all in all it was a very depressing experience and these were with kids whose parents actively participated and encouraged their children's learning. mind you i am not criticizing the teachers. they are fighting the good fight its just a losing battle the way things are.

i am very cognizant of of not only literacy but the process by which a person becomes literate. or not illiterate.

sorry but saying your instead of youre does not qualify someone as being illiterate.

Good for you. I applaud you in your efforts to teach children literacy.

But back to the point I was making:

Are any of those children you would consider "illiterate" able to read or write ANYTHING? If so, you have invalidated your "no wiggle room" argument and have, essentially, agreed with me that illiteracy is a matter of degrees.

Oh, and for the record, I don't think khiladi or anyone capable of keeping track of mulitple pages of discussions is illiterate. We just like to have fun with people on this forum. If you (he) doesn't take it too seriously, then neither will I.

At the end of the day, we're all Cowboys fans. We may disagree, but we're here for a common purpose - at least I hope.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Wow, Roy Williams talking, you don't say??

 

[AmishCowboy]

I wonder how Roy likes that "46" defense we were running late last season?.

 

[5Countem5]

Your extremes betray you.

In the history of reporting, yes, stories have been fabricated. The Washington Post had a situation where a young lady (can't remember her name right off hand) fabricated a story about a young boy on crack. Won a Pultizer. Had to be revoked because it was later discovered that she lied.

And I'm sure you're familiar with Jason Blair.

But as a routine practice, no, reporters don't make up stories. There's too much at risk to do something like that, especially in this economy.

So here's my reason for stating that reporters don't make up stories:

1. I'm a reporter, and I'm aware of the news gathering process.
2. I understand how the media uses anonymous sources.
3. Every media outlet I've worked with has specific rules about the use of anonymous sources when they can be used and when they can't be used.
4. It's not in the best interest of a news organization or a reporter to make up sources, especially since it's pretty easy to detect fabrication.
5. The stories about locker room dissension have been verified by
a. Other news outlets (DMN, FWST, FOX, ESPN, Sports Illustrated), all of whom have reporters who cover the Cowboys.
b. Jerry Jones, who said he doesn't think chemistry is a big deal.
c. Other players who have said there's locker room dissension but have tried to downplay it (as we expect they would)
d. Outside observes like Dan Reeves, who just reported that there's a great divide regarding T.O.

So based on the preponderance of evidence, it's pretty safe to conclude that there's no fabrication.

So what are your points? What evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) do you bring to support your argument that reporters have fabricated this story?

Man, it is true you are a journalist- through and through...

To begin with, that's NOT what Reeves said. You, like other so-called journalists , enjoy playing fast and loose with the language and embellishing what is really said in your summaries. It draws readers.

Who gives YOU the insight that the players are downplaying anything. Why have YOU concluded their answers are meant to cover something up? What do you know about it to make the assertion that they are "downplaying" anything? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Jerry Jones said nothing is going on like what is being reported, yet you know better. Please enlighten us now.

So now we have players (by name) , Reeves, Jerry saying one thing and you run around , holier than thou, screaming you KNOW the journalists aren't just feeding off the rotting corpse of a wasted season.

You're A reporter? Well your profession is the pits. There is no shame, there is no honor. It's about getting a story anyway you can, it's about having the integrity of sticking a camera in a mother's face and asking how she feels about her kids being murdered. It's about making things up to get viewers and readers.

It is in their best interests to lie, and they are fairly smart about as this has evolved over decades. They use the "anonymous source" term because the lie may break down and the story will be exposed and the , like Werder, the reporter can say that he just wrote what he was told. Lying gets ratings, ratings get the reporter popular, popularity gets the reporter more money and so on.

Let me ask a reporter, when using anonymous sources- how much confirmation is sought? Just the source? One other? Two others? How many? And do journalists use each other to get around these guidelines?

And one other thing, did you find it "funny" that the guy TO dissed all year broke the biggest anti-TO story of the year?

 

[EPL0c0]

Sounds like he is on the way out so he is being honest....

this should be a fun thread...

Safety Roy Williams speaks his mind

1:35 PM Sat, Feb 07, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg E-mail http://www.***BANNED-URL***/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg News tips

Safety Roy Williams, who hasn't talked to the media in months, broke his silence by sitting down for an interview with NBC 5's Newy Scruggs.
Newy gave me a briefing about the interview, which will air during Out of Bounds (10:30 p.m. Sunday). Here are some of the highlights:

*Williams believes he's a better fit for a 4-3 scheme than a 3-4, which happens to be what the Cowboys use.
*Williams thinks the Cowboys miss the firm hand of Bill Parcells.
*He's willing to move to linebacker if that's what the Cowboys want him to do.
*Williams thinks too many Cowboys talk too much.
*He believes that T.O. creates distractions by consistently being in the middle of controversies.

*Williams thinks too many Cowboys talk too much.
*He believes that T.O. creates distractions by consistently being in the middle of controversies.

Funny...I think Terrell is consistantly in the middle of the things because of too many Cowboys talk too much. LOL

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Man, it is true you are a journalist- through and through...

To begin with, that's NOT what Reeves said. You, like other so-called journalists , enjoy playing fast and loose with the language and embellishing what is really said in your summaries. It draws readers.

Who gives YOU the insight that the players are downplaying anything. Why have YOU concluded their answers are meant to cover something up? What do you know about it to make the assertion that they are "downplaying" anything? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Jerry Jones said nothing is going on like what is being reported, yet you know better. Please enlighten us now.

So now we have players (by name) , Reeves, Jerry saying one thing and you run around , holier than thou, screaming you KNOW the journalists aren't just feeding off the rotting corpse of a wasted season.

You're A reporter? Well your profession is the pits. There is no shame, there is no honor. It's about getting a story anyway you can, it's about having the integrity of sticking a camera in a mother's face and asking how she feels about her kids being murdered. It's about making things up to get viewers and readers.

It is in their best interests to lie, and they are fairly smart about as this has evolved over decades. They use the "anonymous source" term because the lie may break down and the story will be exposed and the , like Werder, the reporter can say that he just wrote what he was told. Lying gets ratings, ratings get the reporter popular, popularity gets the reporter more money and so on.

Let me ask a reporter, when using anonymous sources- how much confirmation is sought? Just the source? One other? Two others? How many? And do journalists use each other to get around these guidelines?

And one other thing, did you find it "funny" that the guy TO dissed all year broke the biggest anti-TO story of the year?

Do you realize what a personally insulting attack you are making on a fellow poster? And aren't you, in more than one sense, doing the very thing(s) for which you decry journalists? Can you not discuss the Cowboys, even disagree with folks, without heading straight to the dumpster? Can you not make a point without generalizing and exaggerating at every turn? Are you incapable of disagreeing in an agreeable fashion?

If I were to learn you were a garbage collector, then were to say: "Garbage collectors are scum," would that not seem the slightest offensive? Must you tear down the man's profession, whole cloth? Is that your schtick?

 

[5Countem5]

Do you realize what a personally insulting attack you are making on a fellow poster? And aren't you, in more than one sense, doing the very thing(s) for which you decry journalists? Can you not discuss the Cowboys, even disagree with folks, without heading straight to the dumpster? Can you not make a point without generalizing and exaggerating at every turn? Are you incapable of disagreeing in an agreeable fashion?

If I were to learn you were a garbage collector, then were to say: "Garbage collectors are scum," would that not seem the slightest offensive? Must you tear down the man's profession, whole cloth? Is that your schtick?

He wanted a discussion about his "profession" with me and asked me about it while propping it up. I responded with my opinion and I really doubt he is huddled in a corner, in the fetal position over it. I doubt I hurt his feelings or changed his mind about his job.



But sorry it overloaded your sensitivity meter. He asked, I responded.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

He wanted a discussion about his "profession" with me and asked me about it while propping it up. I responded with my opinion and I really doubt he is huddled in a corner, in the fetal position over it. I doubt I hurt his feelings or changed his mind about his job.



But sorry it overloaded your sensitivity meter. He asked, I responded.

It's not a question of whether he's huddled. I'm sure he couldn't care less. It's a question of whether your style of argument is appropriate to adulthood.

 

[5Countem5]

It's not a question of whether he's huddled. I'm sure he couldn't care less. It's a question of whether your style of argument is appropriate to adulthood.

Ohhhhhh I see...

Opinions are only valid if they are wishy-washy enough.