ESPN looks crushed.

[bbgun]

Come on now...

Tyke and bbgun are cool guys, just a little on the left. :

Then you haven't seen my posts in the Poli Zone.

 

[5Stars]

Then you haven't seen my posts in the Poli Zone.

I stay out of politics. Especially if I had to deal with you!!

:laugh2:

 

[jobberone]

Don't bother. The shills are insufferable and impervious to reason. Sultan would gouge his eyes out before he criticized the team, so that's the kind of mentality you're dealing with. He is, however, very interested in others who dare criticize the team. Pretty sad way to go through life, but it works for him.

BTW, Todd Archer of the DMN is so respected around here that the mods made arrangements for him to take questions from Zone members. Archer, not Werder, confirmed the TO-Witten feud just a few days ago, reporting that TO told Jason not to talk to him. Why would TO do that if things were fine and dandy? They're not, that's why. But don't tell that to the shills, who get all their news from #81. If TO says it's a lie, that's good enough for them. Seriously.

I'm not disputing that TO and Witten may have said something. But to make it into a civil war here is what has many of us pissed off with the guy. They weren't separated and there was no fight. But to think fights on football teams don't happen is naive. It happens every year esp in TC. But to say TO is destroying the team is laughable.

You and some others are the ones not getting it.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Don't bother. The shills are insufferable and impervious to reason. Sultan would gouge his eyes out before he criticized the team, so that's the kind of mentality you're dealing with. He is, however, very interested in others who dare criticize the team. Pretty sad way to go through life, but it works for him.

This is hilarious. Didn't you put me on ignore several months back? What happened?

I've criticized the team plenty. Unfortunately to you, nothing except excessive criticism the likes of which you indulge incessantly in, with respect to the team, one that you supposedly root for, is good enough. I think if we take all of your posts, and stripped your name from them to mark them anonymously, and asked an objective observer if the team this person rooted for was the Dallas Cowboys, he would 99.99% of the time say no. If we told him that he claims that he is, the objective observer would probably laugh himself out of the room.

 

[tyke1doe]

Since this argument is going basically no where but personal, I'll respond to your attacks, put them in perspective, and leave it at that.



:laugh2: at how you act like I had absolutely no reason to inject that I study models as a college student. Let's put this in perspective, shall we...

Attack:


Defense:


Attack:


Defense:






Perhaps not quite as ridiculous as you'd like to make it seem.

You injected you're a "college student" as if that's suppose to give you some credibility.

So what? I'm a college graduate.

So what if you study "economic models"?

That has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

You interjected your petty "pathetic little model" comment in an otherwise civil conversation between Yahuza (sic) and myself. And you got called on it.

Take your whipping like the good college student you are and return to study hall.

 

[bbgun]

I'm not disputing that TO and Witten may have said something. But to make it into a civil war here is what has many of us pissed off with the guy.

Civil War? Now who's exaggerating?

They weren't separated and there was no fight.

That was PFT, not Werder. But so what? The rest is bad enough.

But to think fights on football teams don't happen is naive. It happens every year esp in TC.

So Werder's (and others') report of trouble in the air is validated. Good. Now we're making progress.

But to say TO is destroying the team is laughable.

"Destroying"? No one said that. What's implied is that he's a selfish, back-stabbing, pain-in-the-***. Very plausible considering his track record.

You and some others are the ones not getting it

I get it. You're in denial.

 

[tyke1doe]

You folks are completely wasting your time w/ Tyke. The guy really is some media writer. Nobody knows exactly what he writes. He could be Dear Ann for all we know. The fact is that he is a journalist and feels the need to set everyone and I mean EVERYONE straight who happens to disagree w/ the media coverage of the Dallas Cowboys.

Kind of like how a lawyer would set non-lawyers straight on matters of the law.
Kind of like how a doctor would set non-doctors straight on matters of medicine.
Kind of like how a police officer would set civilians straight on matters of law enforcement.

Excuse me if being a member of the profession gives me greater insight about the media than the typical average Joe.

We are completely wrong and BSPN is God. I think that about covers it, right Tyke?

You've got to love Straw men. I've acknowledge the "balanced" perspectives of some of the more "saner" "rational" posters here. I don't ask that you agree with me. I asked that you be fair in your assessment.

Thanks Tyke for setting the record straight. Now us internet guys and computer guys wish for you to LEAVE the internet for good, least you be BUNCHED into some awful caste system like ourselves.

Its really bad down here bro.

Ah, another "Leave don't come back" appeal.

I'm not going to leave, bro. I like wallowing with the low lifes. :laugh1:

 

[tyke1doe]

Don't bother. The shills are insufferable and impervious to reason. Sultan would gouge his eyes out before he criticized the team, so that's the kind of mentality you're dealing with. He is, however, very interested in others who dare criticize the team. Pretty sad way to go through life, but it works for him.

BTW, Todd Archer of the DMN is so respected around here that the mods made arrangements for him to take questions from Zone members. Archer, not Werder, confirmed the TO-Witten feud just a few days ago, reporting that TO told Jason not to talk to him. Why would TO do that if things were fine and dandy? They're not, that's why. But don't tell that to the shills, who get all their news from #81. If TO says it's a lie, that's good enough for them. Seriously.

That about sums it up nicely.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Kind of like how a lawyer would set non-lawyers straight on matters of the law.
Kind of like how a doctor would set non-doctors straight on matters of medicine.
Kind of like how a police officer would set civilians straight on matters of law enforcement.

Excuse me if being a member of the profession gives me greater insight about the media than the typical average Joe.



You've got to love Straw men. I've acknowledge the "balanced" perspectives of some of the more "saner" "rational" posters here. I don't ask that you agree with me. I asked that you be fair in your assessment.




Ah, another "Leave don't come back" appeal.

I'm not going to leave, bro. I like wallowing with the low lifes. :laugh1:

Oh wait.................

 

[tyke1doe]

This is hilarious. Didn't you put me on ignore several months back? What happened?

I've criticized the team plenty. Unfortunately to you, nothing except excessive criticism the likes of which you indulge incessantly in, with respect to the team, one that you supposedly root for, is good enough. I think if we take all of your posts, and stripped your name from them to mark them anonymously, and asked an objective observer if the team this person rooted for was the Dallas Cowboys, he would 99.99% of the time say no. If we told him that he claims that he is, the objective observer would probably laugh himself out of the room.

Did you follow that, bbgun?

 

[Dallas]

Kind of like how a lawyer would set non-lawyers straight on matters of the law.
Kind of like how a doctor would set non-doctors straight on matters of medicine.
Kind of like how a police officer would set civilians straight on matters of law enforcement.

Excuse me if being a member of the profession gives me greater insight about the media than the typical average Joe.



You've got to love Straw men. I've acknowledge the "balanced" perspectives of some of the more "saner" "rational" posters here. I don't ask that you agree with me. I asked that you be fair in your assessment.




Ah, another "Leave don't come back" appeal.

I'm not going to leave, bro. I like wallowing with the low lifes. :laugh1:

But as before Tyke. You fail to view your super power. That power being how to clear a thread in less than 10 seconds.

Carry on trooper. I just point out the obvious.

Im still working on my Dear Ann question for next week. I hope to get it in on time.

 

[tyke1doe]

But as before Tyke. You fail to view your super power. That power being how to clear a thread in less than 10 seconds.

Carry on trooper. I just point out the obvious.

Im still working on my Dear Ann question for next week. I hope to get it in on time.

Okay. I'll be looking for it.

Just address it "T.O. apologist" so I'll know who it's from. And if you sprinkle a few "man love" phrases, it may differentiate it from the other T.O. threads I'm receiving.

 

[jobberone]

Civil War? Now who's exaggerating?



That was PFT, not Werder. But so what? The rest is bad enough.



So Werder's (and others') report of trouble in the air is validated. Good. Now we're making progress.



"Destroying"? No one said that. What's implied is that he's a selfish, back-stabbing, pain-in-the-***. Very plausible considering his track record.



I get it. You're in denial.

You just don't get it or probably just refuse to get it. I didn't make up the TO is a cancer stuff or a civil war in the lockeroom. That's where the media took it.

And I'm not just pissed at Werder but I'm annoyed with the entire media. However, it's only par for the course for Dallas.

I didn't say there was a fight. My point was even if there were words there wasn't a fight like was reported by some. And even if there was it wouldn't mean there is a divided lockeroom. Who cares if someone got miffed. I wouldn't even care if there were words and someone did get separated. Obviously that did not happen. But so what if it did. It wouldn't deserve the hyperbole even if it were a fact.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[bbgun]

This is hilarious. Didn't you put me on ignore several months back? What happened?.

No one's on ignore. I'm confronting the idiocy head on.

I've criticized the team plenty.

Like last week after the Pittsburgh debacle? Oh wait, all you did was take predictable potshots at critics.

Unfortunately to you, nothing except excessive criticism the likes of which you indulge incessantly in, with respect to the team, one that you supposedly root for, is good enough.

They get reamed when they deserve it. Ditto for certain players. I'm not big on loyalty oaths. The funny (depressing?) thing is that the shills have somehow convinced themselves that always taking the team's side does not come off as obnoxious. Wrong.

I think if we take all of your posts, and stripped your name from them to mark them anonymously, and asked an objective observer if the team this person rooted for was the Dallas Cowboys, he would 99.99% of the time say no.

No, the problem is that anyone looks a cynic compared to you and the lobotomized "all is well" crowd. And why would a "hater" post hundreds of vintage Cowboy pics? Some evil plan I cooked up to fool you? LOL.

If we told him that he claims that he is, the objective observer would probably laugh himself out of the room

You're right. I'm nothing like you. That's the price I pay for having a conscience.

 

[BigR]

here is my two cents, take it for what it's worth.....

being a member of the media myself i understand how things work and how every reporter/station/network works an angle. i honestly dont think werder has an ax to grind and no way he flat-out lied and made his report up. that is unethical to the max. imo, he probably did get a few players to say things "off the record", hence the un-named sources, and ran with it. any good journalist would be able to get his "sources" to speak on camera, werder could not, and was forced to sensationalize the story. i dont buy into sensationalistic journalism....never have, never will. it's just not me. do your homework, get confirmation, and report the facts. plain and simple. werder did not do the last 2.

i also never bought into the "espn is out to get the cowboys" either. but......they blew the whole TO VS WITTEN story waaaaaay overboard. i was so angry watching espn last night...i had to stop watching. they are suppose to give in-depth anaylysis and their "experts" are paid to give opinions......but to run the "ticker" and the bottom the the screen "witten targeted 9 times.....owens targeted 5 times"......that was just bs. it was obvious there was no story between romo,to,witten after the game and espn tried to make it a story...irresponsible journalism. the story was how the dallas defense dominated the game, end of story. yet espn ignored it, and tried of continue the "drama"

very bad decision making last night espn producers.

just an opinion from a member of the "evil media"

 

[silver]

here is my two cents, take it for what it's worth.....

being a member of the media myself i understand how things work and how every reporter/station/network works an angle. i honestly dont think werder has an ax to grind and no way he flat-out lied and made his report up. that is unethical to the max. imo, he probably did get a few players to say things "off the record", hence the un-named sources, and ran with it. any good journalist would be able to get his "sources" to speak on camera, werder could not, and was forced to sensationalize the story. i dont buy into sensationalistic journalism....never have, never will. it's just not me. do your homework, get confirmation, and report the facts. plain and simple. werder did not do the last 2.

i also never bought into the "espn is out to get the cowboys" either. but......they blew the whole TO VS WITTEN story waaaaaay overboard. i was so angry watching espn last night...i had to stop watching. they are suppose to give in-depth anaylysis and their "experts" are paid to give opinions......but to run the "ticker" and the bottom the the screen "witten targeted 9 times.....owens targeted 5 times"......that was just bs. it was obvious there was no story between romo,to,witten after the game and espn tried to make it a story...irresponsible journalism. the story was how the dallas defense dominated the game, end of story. yet espn ignored it, and tried of continue the "drama"

very bad decision making last night espn producers.

just an opinion from a member of the "evil media"

Great post. the truth is probably somewhat in between. who cares anymore. we won and that's all it matters.

 

[Givincer]

You injected you're a "college student" as if that's suppose to give you some credibility.

Um, and you attacked me as some "internet guy" who found the world 'model' in some other "internet argument" suggesting I had no credibility. Should I have just accepted that as fact?

So what? I'm a college graduate.

So what if you study "economic models"?

That has NOTHING to do with this discussion.

I think my last post essentially takes care of this part of your post. If you'd like to read it again, go ahead.

You interjected your petty "pathetic little model" comment in an otherwise civil conversation between Yahuza (sic) and myself. And you got called on it.

Take your whipping like the good college student you are and return to study hall.

The only thing that's pathetic is your hubris. Honestly, read our argument over again. I don't see how you could not be embarrassed.

Reply with more snarkiness if you like. Feel free to embarrass yourself further. I'm going to be honest, I won't read it, because I'll be too tempted to reply, and I know it's pointless. So, take care, tyke1doe.

 

[tyke1doe]

here is my two cents, take it for what it's worth.....

being a member of the media myself i understand how things work and how every reporter/station/network works an angle. i honestly dont think werder has an ax to grind and no way he flat-out lied and made his report up. that is unethical to the max. imo, he probably did get a few players to say things "off the record", hence the un-named sources, and ran with it. any good journalist would be able to get his "sources" to speak on camera, werder could not, and was forced to sensationalize the story. i dont buy into sensationalistic journalism....never have, never will. it's just not me. do your homework, get confirmation, and report the facts. plain and simple. werder did not do the last 2.

Sorry, but that's not necessarily true. Whenever it involves negative information, you rarely get players to talk or the organization for that matter.

Many stories in sports are broken via anonymous sources, later to be confirmed with a press conference or some other public interview. And the story DID receive on-air confirmation in the "miminizing" interviews from Wade Phillips, Jason Witten, Tony Romo, Brady James and others.

Second, you may be in journalism, but are you in national journalism, working for a national/international organization?
Local stations and local newspapers have a different perspective with respect to anonymous sources. A paper I used to work for hardly EVER used anonymous sources. Of course, that paper never broken news stories first and maybe that's a reason why.

But for national newspapers and networks, their reporters are judged on their ability to cultivate sources - people who can give them inside information and allow them to break that news story FIRST.

Anonymous sources and their use may be different from network to network and publication to publication, but if you're one of the BIG DOGS, you rely on them regularly and expect your reporters to have such contacts, or you won't be working for those media operations long.

i also never bought into the "espn is out to get the cowboys" either. but......they blew the whole TO VS WITTEN story waaaaaay overboard. i was so angry watching espn last night...i had to stop watching. they are suppose to give in-depth anaylysis and their "experts" are paid to give opinions......but to run the "ticker" and the bottom the the screen "witten targeted 9 times.....owens targeted 5 times"......that was just bs. it was obvious there was no story between romo,to,witten after the game and espn tried to make it a story...irresponsible journalism. the story was how the dallas defense dominated the game, end of story. yet espn ignored it, and tried of continue the "drama"

very bad decision making last night espn producers.

just an opinion from a member of the "evil media"

A few points.

1. The no story behind Romo, T.O. and Witten after the game because the Cowboys won. But the backdrop of the night was what preceded the game during the week.

2. It is YOUR OPINION that the story should have been the Dallas Defense Dominated the Game. But that would have been at the expense of ignoring the story prior to the game. And ESPN did not ignore that story. ESPN has different venues to handle that story ... The Blitz, NFL Live, Around the Horn, PTI, etc.

3. Remember ESPN's name ENTERTAINMENT Sports Programming Network. A part of their mission is to provide the entertainment aspect of sports programming as well as the stats part of sports. The "drama" fits into its mission. You may not like it. And that is your choice. For people like you, you will gravitate to sites like this or blogs that provide more indepth analysis on football. But ESPN's viewers are expecting the human stories behind sports.
And this is very much a human story - the attitude within the locker room and how players feel about one another.

Having said that, thank you for your opinion, bro in the cause.

 

[SultanOfSix]

No one's on ignore. I'm confronting the idiocy head on.

I said you claimed to put me on ignore. But, obviously you lied.

Like last week after the Pittsburgh debacle? Oh wait, all you did was take predictable potshots at critics.

I took potshots at obvious trolls. Those who come in during a loss, criticize, and then disappear. Unlike yourself, who does it incessantly no matter the time and is generally well known for it on this forum.

Perhaps I upset you under one of your hidden troll aliases.

They get reamed when they deserve it.

You have no credibility to put others under the microscope.

Ditto for certain players. I'm not big on loyalty oaths. The funny (depressing?) thing is that the shills have somehow convinced themselves that always taking the team's side does not come off as obnoxious. Wrong.

Alas, the extreme positions you criticize others with is just a reflection of your own extremism. Existence is a mirror that reflects oneself.

No, the problem is that anyone looks a cynic compared to you and the lobotomized "all is well" crowd. And why would a "hater" post hundreds of vintage Cowboy pics? Some evil plan I cooked up to fool you? LOL.

It's not hard to post vintage Cowboys pics. Perhaps you're a closet Skins fan who's hatred of their arch rival has caused your obsession with them. In fact, you seem to fit the psychiatric profile to a tee.

You're right. I'm nothing like you. That's the price I pay for having a conscience.

Yes, thank God I am nothing like you. Optimism, forgiveness, and general human decency are apparently your magnetic opposites.

 

[tyke1doe]

Um, and you attacked me as some "internet guy" who found the world 'model' in some other "internet argument" suggesting I had no credibility. Should I have just accepted that as fact?

You entered a conversation that didn't involve you by drawing attention to my "pathetic little model."

You fired the first shot. Your intention was not to engage in a civil debate but to make a point and show how "knowledgeable" you were about models.

So you got hammered.

If you want to have a discussion, then let's have one. If you want to question my observation, then do so in a civil manner. I can respect disagreement. I can respect people questioning my logic. But in a true discussion, people ask questions, "Tyke1doe, you seem to be contradicting yourself, please explain."

People interested in civil discussion DON'T enter a discussion with "your pathetic little model." You wouldn't do it in real life, but somehow people feel emboldened on the Internet.

Now you can do what you like. But I warn you. I have MANY words and my feelings aren't easily hurt. And I can dish it out as well as I can take it.

I think my last post essentially takes care of this part of your post. If you'd like to read it again, go ahead.

I did. And it still doesn't have any place in this discussion. So what if you study economic models. Is this an economic discussion?

The only thing that's pathetic is your hubris. Honestly, read our argument over again. I don't see how you could not be embarrassed.

My hubris. :laugh1:

You're the one who entered with the "your pathetic little model" comments. Don't be mad because I gave you an education outside of your college study session.

Reply with more snarkiness if you like. Feel free to embarrass yourself further. I'm going to be honest, I won't read it, because I'll be too tempted to reply, and I know it's pointless. So, take care, tyke1doe.

That's about the best thing you've said in this post.