Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: Calling out posters in threads...

  1. #1
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276

    Exclamation Calling out posters in threads...

    I missed this mess with Chipshot yesterday, however I just wanted to say that I think it's just as bad to call out posters you have a problem with in a seperate public thread. Polls on banning people are also out of line in my opinion. For the future if anyone has a problem with someone drop a PM to a mod, or Sooth, and let us be the judge of what action should be taken. It's very easy for people to join in with an angry mob, and threads calling people out to into exactly that.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    §omewhere ť§afe®©ť™
    Posts
    10,890
    Quote Originally Posted by jetswin
    I missed this mess with Chipshot yesterday, however I just wanted to say that I think it's just as bad to call out posters you have a problem with in a seperate public thread. Polls on banning people are also out of line in my opinion. For the future if anyone has a problem with someone drop a PM to a mod, or Sooth, and let us be the judge of what action should be taken. It's very easy for people to join in with an angry mob, and threads calling people out to into exactly that.

    Thanks.

    I'm sorry for starting the poll..I did it to poke fun at the other thread..

    I agree with your assessment.

  3. #3
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276
    Quote Originally Posted by bill parcells
    I'm sorry for starting the poll..I did it to poke fun at the other thread..

    I agree with your assessment.
    thnx

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    22,714
    This should be a sticky IMO.

    What went on yesterday was a joke.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    44,945
    Dam and I was gonna start a Jetswin my Favorite Mod poll...

  6. #6
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276
    Quote Originally Posted by savage69
    Dam and I was gonna start a Jetswin my Favorite Mod poll...
    of course...there are exceptions to every rule

  7. #7
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,323

    Thanks Jetswin

    I missed all the soap opera stuff too. I imagined several posters standing at their PC's holding pitchforks and torches!!!

    In that light here is an "ON topic" story. It's about a woman who was accused of witchcraft in Virginia Beach over 300 years ago (We have a road called Witchduck Road, that's where it got it's name from).

    http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...7335&ran=20112

    Enjoy!

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    44,945
    Quote Originally Posted by chesapeakejet
    I missed all the soap opera stuff too. I imagined several posters standing at their PC's holding pitchforks and torches!!!

    In that light here is an "ON topic" story. It's about a woman who was accused of witchcraft in Virginia Beach over 300 years ago (We have a road called Witchduck Road, that's where it got it's name from).

    http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...7335&ran=20112

    Enjoy!
    A more factual name would have been Witchdunk rd..

  9. #9
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276
    Quote Originally Posted by chesapeakejet
    Witchduck Road,

    Last edited by jetswin; 07-10-2006 at 12:44 PM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    13, Knights Who say Ni street, Long Island, NY.
    Posts
    7,824
    hahahahaha..... SHES A WITCH!!!!!

  11. #11
    Super*****/Prom Queen
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Italian Riveria in Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    16,039

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by jetswin
    of course...there are exceptions to every rule
    Hey I'd like to publicly call out this reporter for being an idiot:

    Behind the times ~ Black coaching candidates still not given what they deserve

    By Ron Borges
    As published in print Feb. 12, 2001


    Jets head coach
    Herman Edwards

    The best thing about the hiring of Herman Edwards as the new head coach of the Jets was that not until the ninth paragraph of a story in the New York Times announcing his appointment was it mentioned that he was black.

    When it finally was, however, the paragraph began thusly: "The Jets went to great lengths to play down the significance of Edwards becoming just the sixth black head coach in National Football League history, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job."

    One would hope so.

    One also would hope that soon the perceived need for the inclusion of such a paragraph would disappear from American sports reporting.

    Why would anyone need to point out the Jets felt Edwards was the best candidate for the job? Why would he be hired if he was not the best candidate for the job? Because the NFL is a leader in affirmative action hiring? I think not.

    When such a sentence is written, innocently to be sure, it is a subtle continuation of the long-held but absurdly erroneous belief among too many in America that blacks cannot lead. It is a form of racism that remains virulent in American society, and it is a most dangerous cancer because it is not overt. It is covert, which, by its nature, makes it more difficult to ferret out.

    The need to point out in print that a man was perceived as the best candidate for the job (and thus, by extrapolation, not hired for the color of his skin) is the type of unconscious bias that has held African-Americans back from pro football’s leadership positions, such as quarterback, middle linebacker, center and head coach, for decades. Today, however, they are among the best practitioners at each of those positions.

    Did anyone write when Dick Vermeil was hired in Kansas City that "the Chiefs went to great lengths to play down the significance of Vermeil’s old age, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" If they did, I missed it.

    Did anyone write when Marty Schottenheimer was hired in Washington that "the Redskins went to great lengths to play down the significance of Schottenheimer becoming just the 6,000th white head coach in National Football League history, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" No, they did not.

    Did anyone write when Gregg Williams became the surprise choice of the Bills as their new head coach over Ravens defensive coordinator Marvin Lewis that "the Bills went to great lengths to play down the significance of Williams being white, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" I think not.

    So what does the magic number of black head coaches in the NFL have to be before the reports of their hiring do not require a reference to their ethnicity and the requisite pointing out that it had nothing to do with their selection? If it had nothing to do with their selection, then why point it out? Just for the record? A picture would seem to cover that end of it just as well, and far less intrusively.

    No one mentions this anymore in the NBA, where there has been a long history of integration in the coach’s room, as well as in the locker room. Obviously, the NFL has not yet found a way to follow suit, although of the four candidates the Jets interviewed, three were black (Buffalo’s Ted Cottrell and Jets assistant head coach Maurice Carthon were the other two). Since that seemed to make the odds pretty good that the Jets’ next head coach would be an African-American, why the need to bring it up at his hiring in such a way as to stress that ethnicity had nothing to do with that hiring in the first place? Edwards’ shoe size had nothing to do with his hiring either. No newspaper mentioned his shoe size.

    Sometimes, those of us who type for a living forget how insensitive we can be. I plead guilty and hold a spot at the head of that line, having once called a former Patriots No. 1 draft choice a "slow dwarf." Turned out he was, but it was not the kindest way to introduce him to the public.

    But the sooner we who write about the game stop fixating on Edwards being the sixth black head coach or the next fellow (perhaps Lewis next year) being the seventh, the sooner the rest of the world will forget to notice it too. The reverse is also true. When Williams blew away Tom Donahoe and the Bills at his interview the week before the Super Bowl, he went from long shot to leader, and poor Lewis wasn’t able to counter when he interviewed for the job the day after the Super Bowl.

    It was not a racial issue that prevented Lewis from getting the Bills’ job, just as it wasn’t for Giants defensive coordinator John Fox, who is white. Both suffered from having to prepare for the Super Bowl while Williams could prepare for his interview.

    That may mean a systemic change is needed in the NFL so top assistants whose teams are in the Super Bowl aren’t penalized for their success. But that is not a racial issue, it’s a logistical one. And any suggestion otherwise demeans Lewis, as well as the Bills, and should be halted immediately.

    This is not to say vigilance must not be maintained. The NFL’s record of hiring blacks as head coaches remains dismal. This offseason, jobs opened in Detroit, New York, Washington, Kansas City, Buffalo, Cleveland and Houston. Of those openings, only one was filled by an African-American, although several blacks were interviewed for other openings.

    Reporters should keep track of that progress, or lack thereof, because it remains a blemish on the NFL. But what reporters need not do is interject whenever someone such as Edwards is hired that his team felt he was the best candidate for the job.

    Let’s give black coaches the same respect that white ones have so long received. Slow though the pace may still be, when an African-American gets the chance to run a multimillion-dollar football team in the future, let’s at least not point out the obvious — that he was considered the best man for the job. When we do, we are not honoring him, we’re slighting him.
    Ron Borges is a columnist for the Boston Globe
    Last edited by Limolady; 07-10-2006 at 12:57 PM. Reason: Spelling error

  12. #12
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Nassau Bay, TX
    Posts
    52,287
    Quote Originally Posted by jetswin

    Polls on banning people are also out of line in my opinion.
    I think jetswin shold be banned.

  13. #13
    Charter JI Member
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,276
    Quote Originally Posted by PatsFanTX
    I think jetswin shold be banned.
    ok Winger, you just made the list
    Last edited by jetswin; 07-10-2006 at 01:01 PM.

  14. #14
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,323
    Quote Originally Posted by savage69
    A more factual name would have been Witchdunk rd..
    You're right. I never have gotten that either and I've been around here off and on for 30 years!

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    44,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Limolady
    Hey I'd like to publicly call out this reporter for being an idiot:

    Behind the times ~ Black coaching candidates still not given what they deserve

    By Ron Borges
    As published in print Feb. 12, 2001


    Jets head coach
    Herman Edwards

    The best thing about the hiring of Herman Edwards as the new head coach of the Jets was that not until the ninth paragraph of a story in the New York Times announcing his appointment was it mentioned that he was black.

    When it finally was, however, the paragraph began thusly: "The Jets went to great lengths to play down the significance of Edwards becoming just the sixth black head coach in National Football League history, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job."

    One would hope so.

    One also would hope that soon the perceived need for the inclusion of such a paragraph would disappear from American sports reporting.

    Why would anyone need to point out the Jets felt Edwards was the best candidate for the job? Why would he be hired if he was not the best candidate for the job? Because the NFL is a leader in affirmative action hiring? I think not.

    When such a sentence is written, innocently to be sure, it is a subtle continuation of the long-held but absurdly erroneous belief among too many in America that blacks cannot lead. It is a form of racism that remains virulent in American society, and it is a most dangerous cancer because it is not overt. It is covert, which, by its nature, makes it more difficult to ferret out.

    The need to point out in print that a man was perceived as the best candidate for the job (and thus, by extrapolation, not hired for the color of his skin) is the type of unconscious bias that has held African-Americans back from pro football’s leadership positions, such as quarterback, middle linebacker, center and head coach, for decades. Today, however, they are among the best practitioners at each of those positions.

    Did anyone write when Dick Vermeil was hired in Kansas City that "the Chiefs went to great lengths to play down the significance of Vermeil’s old age, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" If they did, I missed it.

    Did anyone write when Marty Schottenheimer was hired in Washington that "the Redskins went to great lengths to play down the significance of Schottenheimer becoming just the 6,000th white head coach in National Football League history, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" No, they did not.

    Did anyone write when Gregg Williams became the surprise choice of the Bills as their new head coach over Ravens defensive coordinator Marvin Lewis that "the Bills went to great lengths to play down the significance of Williams being white, stressing that he was the best candidate for the job?" I think not.

    So what does the magic number of black head coaches in the NFL have to be before the reports of their hiring do not require a reference to their ethnicity and the requisite pointing out that it had nothing to do with their selection? If it had nothing to do with their selection, then why point it out? Just for the record? A picture would seem to cover that end of it just as well, and far less intrusively.

    No one mentions this anymore in the NBA, where there has been a long history of integration in the coach’s room, as well as in the locker room. Obviously, the NFL has not yet found a way to follow suit, although of the four candidates the Jets interviewed, three were black (Buffalo’s Ted Cottrell and Jets assistant head coach Maurice Carthon were the other two). Since that seemed to make the odds pretty good that the Jets’ next head coach would be an African-American, why the need to bring it up at his hiring in such a way as to stress that ethnicity had nothing to do with that hiring in the first place? Edwards’ shoe size had nothing to do with his hiring either. No newspaper mentioned his shoe size.

    Sometimes, those of us who type for a living forget how insensitive we can be. I plead guilty and hold a spot at the head of that line, having once called a former Patriots No. 1 draft choice a "slow dwarf." Turned out he was, but it was not the kindest way to introduce him to the public.

    But the sooner we who write about the game stop fixating on Edwards being the sixth black head coach or the next fellow (perhaps Lewis next year) being the seventh, the sooner the rest of the world will forget to notice it too. The reverse is also true. When Williams blew away Tom Donahoe and the Bills at his interview the week before the Super Bowl, he went from long shot to leader, and poor Lewis wasn’t able to counter when he interviewed for the job the day after the Super Bowl.

    It was not a racial issue that prevented Lewis from getting the Bills’ job, just as it wasn’t for Giants defensive coordinator John Fox, who is white. Both suffered from having to prepare for the Super Bowl while Williams could prepare for his interview.

    That may mean a systemic change is needed in the NFL so top assistants whose teams are in the Super Bowl aren’t penalized for their success. But that is not a racial issue, it’s a logistical one. And any suggestion otherwise demeans Lewis, as well as the Bills, and should be halted immediately.

    This is not to say vigilance must not be maintained. The NFL’s record of hiring blacks as head coaches remains dismal. This offseason, jobs opened in Detroit, New York, Washington, Kansas City, Buffalo, Cleveland and Houston. Of those openings, only one was filled by an African-American, although several blacks were interviewed for other openings.

    Reporters should keep track of that progress, or lack thereof, because it remains a blemish on the NFL. But what reporters need not do is interject whenever someone such as Edwards is hired that his team felt he was the best candidate for the job.

    Let’s give black coaches the same respect that white ones have so long received. Slow though the pace may still be, when an African-American gets the chance to run a multimillion-dollar football team in the future, let’s at least not point out the obvious — that he was considered the best man for the job. When we do, we are not honoring him, we’re slighting him.
    Ron Borges is a columnist for the Boston Globe
    Typical Liberal Media! Especially The NFL’s record of hiring blacks as head coaches remains dismal The NFL doesn't hire Coaches Owners do! And a owner can hire anyone he wants that's what freedom is! Do the same reporters call for more White W/r's,RB's,DB's etc?? I didn't think so!

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    20,936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikeyman3
    This should be a sticky IMO.

    What went on yesterday was a joke.
    I agree, I read most of the thread and there are several other people who went further then Chipshot and should get banned too if the rule is racial slur = banning. He just seemed to be in the minority so he lost. Of coarse I don't know much about his history but based on this incident, there seemed to be a few who took it further then ChipShot did....

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    §omewhere ť§afe®©ť™
    Posts
    10,890
    how in the hell did herman edwards wind up in this thread???

    I will always call out herm!!!!!

  18. #18
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,323
    Quote Originally Posted by ChanTheMaster
    I agree, I read most of the thread and there are several other people who went further then Chipshot and should get banned too if the rule is racial slur = banning. He just seemed to be in the minority so he lost. Of coarse I don't know much about his history but based on this incident, there seemed to be a few who took it further then ChipShot did....
    I just wanted to point out, that I know of at least one other occaission where ChipShot was temporarily suspended from posting. So it's not like Sooth hadn't given him a chance.

    I know if it were me and I had already been slapped once, I'd be a bit more careful the next time I posted.

    But hey, that's my opinion and you know what they're like!

  19. #19
    Super*****/Prom Queen
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Italian Riveria in Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    16,039
    Quote Originally Posted by bill parcells
    how in the hell did herman edwards wind up in this thread??? I will always call out herm!!!!!
    Well we are talking about questionable characters, aren't we?

    Here's a guy who went from everyone's favorite children's entertainer:




    To everyone's favorite pervert/tabloid fodder boy:



    Last edited by Limolady; 07-10-2006 at 01:49 PM. Reason: re-edited pictures

  20. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Limolady
    Well we are talking about questionable characters, aren't we?

    Here's a guy who went from everyone's favorite children's entertainer:




    To everyone's favorite pervert/tabloid fodder boy:



    Tom Shane is back!!!???

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us