Houshphandzadeh wrote:Do the e-mails say stuff like "I am deeply hurt and offended?" I have a hard time believing anything like that is true.

No, it says that it is disgusting that journalist would write anything like that and puts the paper in a very bad light. Hurt != offended. I am offended as a Jew and a blogger. The fact he sent that out and had no care who it went to was enough to let me know he cares not about who he offends.

I am sorry, wishing death on all the bloggers is enough to warrant a complaint email. I consider it online harassment.

I am not offended personally by this, but I can understand why some would be. I will write some emails, couldn't hurt.

I just don't like Conlin, he is a fat prick

WilliamC wrote:I am not offended personally by this, but I can understand why some would be. I will write some emails, couldn't hurt.

I just don't like Conlin, he is a fat prick

I am offended by any offensive comment. It's all about intent. If someone said this kidding around, who cares. I think it is disgusting he feels this way and that he felt he should express that to a nameless blogger.

Disco Stu wrote:I am offended by any offensive comment.

Drugs Delaney wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:I am offended by any offensive comment.

Hey, mostly mine.

Show me an offensive comment I made and I'll eat crow. Til then, keep on livin the good life chum.

Disco Stu wrote:

Drugs Delaney wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:I am offended by any offensive comment.

Hey, mostly mine.

Show me an offensive comment I made and I'll eat crow. Til then, keep on livin the good life chum.

I would have laughed at that line had anybody else said it. It's a ridiculous statement.

Also, you might want to read up on using commas in direct address.

Drugs Delaney wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Drugs Delaney wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:I am offended by any offensive comment.

Hey, mostly mine.

Show me an offensive comment I made and I'll eat crow. Til then, keep on livin the good life chum.

I would have laughed at that line had anybody else said it. It's a ridiculous statement.

Also, you might want to read up on using commas in direct address.

It was in response to WilliamC's comment about how he wasn't offended. I don't need to be black to be insulted by offensive black remarks. You don't need to be Jewish to be offended by offensive Jewish remarks.

I was thinking about making a snarky comment like you made, but you know, I'll abstain.

Of course, aside from the unfortunate reference, Conlin does have half a point here. Of course, Conlin and his ilk aren't much better. There's a nice long rant on the subject here

Wiz sent me this, I thought it was appropriate here.

Disco Stu wrote:
It was in response to WilliamC's comment about how he wasn't offended. I don't need to be black to be insulted by offensive black remarks. You don't need to be Jewish to be offended by offensive Jewish remarks.

I was thinking about making a snarky comment like you made, but you know, I'll abstain.

Was it really an offensive Jewish remark? Not trying to come across as a jerk or to stand up for Conlin, but I don't find anything in his ridiculous comment to be anti-semitic. I view the comment as a poor, pathetic attempt to demean the new media and to keep himself and other professional writers more relevant in his own eyes.

TenuredVulture wrote:Of course, aside from the unfortunate reference, Conlin does have half a point here. Of course, Conlin and his ilk aren't much better. There's a nice long rant on the subject here

Wiz sent me this, I thought it was appropriate here.

But I think the media was creeping along trying not to offend either side long before bloggers came on the scene. The difference then was the pressure came from organized groups with money, who could afford to orchestrate write-in campaigns and buy ads broadcasting their viewpoint. Increasingly, those groups were controlled by big money interests and grass roots campaigns were becoming more and more rare.

And these people were just as "self selecting" as the bloggers.

I think I would rather have the bloggers because it takes a lot of the money issue out of it. Given the way media conglomerates are gobbling up all the smaller media outlets, I think it's the safer bet. The net neutrality issue is also going to come into play at some point.

JMO.

FTN wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Although this particular instance is a bit over the top, I think it's a pretty strange situation for the writers when we're all passing their e-mails around amongst us and they know it. I think it's problematic to ask for individual, off-the-cuff e-mail answers and expect their full and liable stamp on each one. I think most posters around here have made jokes, maybe plenty of them, that would get us fired or chastised if we were under scrutiny, and rather than care, I usually laugh, so I can't really hold Conlin's feet to the fire over a crass remark.

The big difference here is that Conlin is a "journalist", and the people he's responding to are, in many cases, his clients or potential clients.

Furthermore, journalists hate bloggers so much because they're just unwashed retards who never went to j-school like they did.

I highly doubt Conlin has a different opinion than the one I just described - so, as the professional, he should have to eat his own bile and be held to journalistic standards that wouldn't allow for this kind of weak assed nonsense.

At the same time, it's sad that violation of political correctness is more likely to cost him his job than all of the years he's sucked at it.

Monkeyboy wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Of course, aside from the unfortunate reference, Conlin does have half a point here. Of course, Conlin and his ilk aren't much better. There's a nice long rant on the subject here

Wiz sent me this, I thought it was appropriate here.

But I think the media was creeping along trying not to offend either side long before bloggers came on the scene. The difference then was the pressure came from organized groups with money, who could afford to orchestrate write-in campaigns and buy ads broadcasting their viewpoint. Increasingly, those groups were controlled by big money interests and grass roots campaigns were becoming more and more rare.

And these people were just as "self selecting" as the bloggers.

I think I would rather have the bloggers because it takes a lot of the money issue out of it. Given the way media conglomerates are gobbling up all the smaller media outlets, I think it's the safer bet. The net neutrality issue is also going to come into play at some point.

JMO.

I certainly don't agree with everything Curtis has to say. But on the internet (and this has been the case from nearly the beginning) where you can hide behind an avatar and act irresponsibly without ever being called on it. Given that, a lot of people would rather act nasty towards those with whom they disagree or troll than engage in real discourse. Or, they simply spend their e-time in various echo chambers.

TenuredVulture wrote: Given that, a lot of people would rather act nasty towards those with whom they disagree or troll than engage in real discourse. Or, they simply spend their time in various echo chambers.

So it's not that different than the rest of the media?

kruker wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:
It was in response to WilliamC's comment about how he wasn't offended. I don't need to be black to be insulted by offensive black remarks. You don't need to be Jewish to be offended by offensive Jewish remarks.

I was thinking about making a snarky comment like you made, but you know, I'll abstain.

Was it really an offensive Jewish remark? Not trying to come across as a jerk or to stand up for Conlin, but I don't find anything in his ridiculous comment to be anti-semitic. I view the comment as a poor, pathetic attempt to demean the new media and to keep himself and other professional writers more relevant in his own eyes.

Well, first off, let me say it is more than just Jewish as thousands of other people lost their lives (other than military).

However, the offensive remark is drawing any sort of correlation between what Hitler did to the Jews and any other group not involved. He trivialized the action by making it into a "joke". Haha, Hitler would have killed you guys and that woulda been a-ok with me. While certainly insulting to the bloggers who he pretty much sentenced to death, but also minimalized the Holocaust by bringing it to that level.

VoxOrion wrote:
Furthermore, journalists hate bloggers so much because they're just unwashed retards who never went to j-school like they did.

I highly doubt Conlin has a different opinion than the one I just described - so, as the professional, he should have to eat his own bile and be held to journalistic standards that wouldn't allow for this kind of weak assed nonsense.

At the same time, it's sad that violation of political correctness is more likely to cost him his job than all of the years he's sucked at it.

I feel that this entire post was really a shot at "political correctness". Does it bother you that people think this is offensive? Is it not? I know you will say that he was just saying, in effect, "I just don't like ya." But these weren't just poorly chosen words. He is a journalist afterall.

Sadly, I think people are trying to make PC unPC because they miss the real meaning of PC, which has nothing to do with PC at all.

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: Given that, a lot of people would rather act nasty towards those with whom they disagree or troll than engage in real discourse. Or, they simply spend their time in various echo chambers.

So it's not that different than the rest of the media?

Let's take TGP, an intelligent blog with largely intelligent, well-informed, and civil posts. For commentary, it's probably superior to 95% of what's out there. It's a well monitored, self-selective community. But there's virtually no reporting over there. At best, it's analysis of second hand information.

That's because the media maintains a monopoly (can sports bloggers get press credentials? probably not) on access to that information. But it's also because getting information like that first hand is costly. For us to have something to blog about, there still needs to be reporting. So on some level, we're parasites on the media.

Now, none of that says the media are doing a good job. Certainly, the commentators are doing a more or less terrible job. But even so, there's still a level of accountability there. I certainly wouldn't want to see blogs go away, but I think bloggers and others who post on the internet should be reasonably responsible for how they act.

dajafi wrote:My take here.

I'll admit that I hope the obese schmuck loses his job over this one.

Dajafi, I enjoyed your "take", well written as always. Conlin really has gotten too old. He's beyond and anachronism. He like some old-timers longs for an age long gone. The comment is just retarded in every way. Wholly inappropriate, out of proportion and his tone really just a snivelly whiney kid. Too bad... he has some great stories about Phila. Baseball in the 50's and 60's... but he's just not relevant anymore.

Wow... I had already forwarded my dad the guy who ripped his article apart on the joemorgan blog... can't say I'll miss him if this sprials out of cotnrol on him...

TenuredVulture wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote: Given that, a lot of people would rather act nasty towards those with whom they disagree or troll than engage in real discourse. Or, they simply spend their time in various echo chambers.

So it's not that different than the rest of the media?

Let's take TGP, an intelligent blog with largely intelligent, well-informed, and civil posts. For commentary, it's probably superior to 95% of what's out there. It's a well monitored, self-selective community. But there's virtually no reporting over there. At best, it's analysis of second hand information.

That's because the media maintains a monopoly (can sports bloggers get press credentials? probably not) on access to that information. But it's also because getting information like that first hand is costly. For us to have something to blog about, there still needs to be reporting. So on some level, we're parasites on the media.

Now, none of that says the media are doing a good job. Certainly, the commentators are doing a more or less terrible job. But even so, there's still a level of accountability there. I certainly wouldn't want to see blogs go away, but I think bloggers and others who post on the internet should be reasonably responsible for how they act.

I'm all for technology allowing people to be less specialized. If you can make a great remix or write a brilliant piece on a blog, or take amazing photos -- power to you. There is of course, lots of mediocrity and a lot more signal-to-noize to navigate but that's not a bad thing, and especially if it can bring us back to some regionalism. The homogenaeity of American and world-life has many downsides.

There are things on blogs and other self-published venues that rival or surpass lots of "official journalism". A good idea, well written and expressed or researched -- who cares what school the writer/researcher/pundit went to. If I recall, of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw only one had even gone to college and it was something like South Dakota U (i may be off... but you get the gist)

I've said this before here and elsewhere and it rings true over and over and can never be over-stated -- (and I got this from a Chomsky talk) but he said and I agree -- there are:

facts
assertions
interpretations

and it's really important to distinguish between them. Facts are facts though. A lot of what is posited as fact are really assertions or even interpretations. And of course, there is always propoganda. Deliberate mis-information and presentation of false or distorted facts.

Bill Conlin or any credentialed journalist has access and some resources to "get a scoop" or do an interview -- but that alone doesn't make him more qualified. I don't agree that every blogger is just asserting and interpreting, I believe that bloggers can make statements of fact, not heresay or second hand info as well.

I agree with Stu about the Hitler reference, it's not so much to call Bloggers Jews or Jew-like and or Jew-deserving -- it's to minimize something of an entirely other order of magnitude as to compare it to a group he perceives (mis-perceives) to be a nuisance. It was obviously a wise-crack, just a very inappropriate one and a seasoned journalist of his years -- whether online or off, needs to be much more careful about his choice of words, even in sarcasm.

P-t-K

Disco Stu wrote:Well, first off, let me say it is more than just Jewish as thousands of other people lost their lives (other than military).

However, the offensive remark is drawing any sort of correlation between what Hitler did to the Jews and any other group not involved. He trivialized the action by making it into a "joke". Haha, Hitler would have killed you guys and that woulda been a-ok with me. While certainly insulting to the bloggers who he pretty much sentenced to death, but also minimalized the Holocaust by bringing it to that level.

I just searched for "Holocaust" and your name

viewtopic.php_p=167921

Disco Stu wrote:No, 1078 is a reference to the number of friends and family members I lost in the Holocaust. Is that what your 1077 means?

Didn't you "minimalize" the holocaust the same way with that joke? If Conlin should be fired, maybe you should ban yourself from this board?

bleh wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Well, first off, let me say it is more than just Jewish as thousands of other people lost their lives (other than military).

However, the offensive remark is drawing any sort of correlation between what Hitler did to the Jews and any other group not involved. He trivialized the action by making it into a "joke". Haha, Hitler would have killed you guys and that woulda been a-ok with me. While certainly insulting to the bloggers who he pretty much sentenced to death, but also minimalized the Holocaust by bringing it to that level.

I just searched for "Holocaust" and your name

viewtopic.php_p=167921

Disco Stu wrote:No, 1078 is a reference to the number of friends and family members I lost in the Holocaust. Is that what your 1077 means?

Didn't you "minimalize" the holocaust the same way with that joke? If Conlin should be fired, maybe you should ban yourself from this board?

I knew this would be an attempt to "discredit" me. What is sad is that you are using the Holocaust to try to continue your attack on me. Talk about irony. Of course, the rulebook states that you are allowed to make jokes if you are within the group. I am a Jew, so I can make as many Holocaust jokes as I like, without impunity. I have immunity. Move on please.