Disco Stu wrote:

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.

I know exactly what you mean. I just converted to Judaism just for the jokes. As a dentist, I need to have a full arsenal when I'm drilling my patients.

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

Ding.

Meh. Conlin's Hitler reference is certainly more than an unfortunate word choice and if people want to take him to task for it go ahead. But by the time this exchange has reached the third or fourth email I think it's sufficiently removed from Conlin's public role as a journalist and is simply parrying between a pain-in-the-neck blogger and a cranky newspaperman.

The amazing and ridiculous thing is that Conlin responds at all, or hasn't simply come up with a boilerplate response like, "You make a good case for Wright, but Rollins' leadership and ability to rise to the occasion blah, blah, blah..." Bloggers everywhere should probably celebrate that Conlin continues to rise to the bait and then puts his foot in it deeper and deeper until I've entirely lost track of my metaphor.

I'm a big fan of pamphleteers and shed my admiration of Hitler quite a while ago, but Conlin does have a point in regarding this guy as clueless. Conlin writes a daily column that's meant to sell papers. Which column makes more sense to write, a celebration of the Phillies plucky shortstop, or an examination of the statistical excellence of David Wright's season? Even if Big Bill had spent half a second looking at the records of the other MVP candidates it's simply not the sort of thing people read him for. And if he thinks "sabermetrics' somehow makes anyone "wrong" who doesn't see clearly that Wright should be the MVP because of a superior WARP, then he doesn't have a very good handle on either evaluating statistics or determining the MVP. A good case can be made for a number of candidates, including Rollins-to hitch Wright's superiority on one particular stat is to be as close-minded and dogmatic as Conlin. The author also makes a big thing about Conlin not having closely read the previous emails and seeing that he was a Phillies fan, yet somehow seems to still assert the Conlin voted for the MVP as a member of the BBWAA even after Conlin clearly states that he did not.

Let's not forget what this was about. Conlin wrote an article extolling Rollins as MVP. The author disagreed-he really thought David Wright should have been the MVP, and stated so in an email polite in form but dripping with derision. Conlin responded that he didn't really care what he thought.

That's pretty much where it should have ended, but of course it didn't, descending into an exchange of the blogger's snobberies and Conlin's idiocies. But at that point I feel like just letting them fight it out until they cool off-neither the snobberies nor idiocies have anything to do with me.

hurstad wrote:I know exactly what you mean. I just converted to Judaism just for the jokes. As a dentist, I need to have a full arsenal when I'm drilling my patients.

"Those aren't buoys"

I will say, as a converted sabr-guy, that I disagree with the blogger, and he helps give credence to all those whom dismiss SABR.

swishnicholson wrote:Meh. Conlin's Hitler reference is certainly more than an unfortunate word choice and if people want to take him to task for it go ahead. But by the time this exchange has reached the third or fourth email I think it's sufficiently removed from Conlin's public role as a journalist and is simply parrying between a pain-in-the-neck blogger and a cranky newspaperman.

The amazing and ridiculous thing is that Conlin responds at all, or hasn't simply come up with a boilerplate response like, "You make a good case for Wright, but Rollins' leadership and ability to rise to the occasion blah, blah, blah..." Bloggers everywhere should probably celebrate that Conlin continues to rise to the bait and then puts his foot in it deeper and deeper until I've entirely lost track of my metaphor.

I'm a big fan of pamphleteers and shed my admiration of Hitler quite a while ago, but Conlin does have a point in regarding this guy as clueless. Conlin writes a daily column that's meant to sell papers. Which column makes more sense to write, a celebration of the Phillies plucky shortstop, or an examination of the statistical excellence of David Wright's season? Even if Big Bill had spent half a second looking at the records of the other MVP candidates it's simply not the sort of thing people read him for. And if he thinks "sabermetrics' somehow makes anyone "wrong" who doesn't see clearly that Wright should be the MVP because of a superior WARP, then he doesn't have a very good handle on either evaluating statistics or determining the MVP. A good case can be made for a number of candidates, including Rollins-to hitch Wright's superiority on one particular stat is to be as close-minded and dogmatic as Conlin. The author also makes a big thing about Conlin not having closely read the previous emails and seeing that he was a Phillies fan, yet somehow seems to still assert the Conlin voted for the MVP as a member of the BBWAA even after Conlin clearly states that he did not.

Let's not forget what this was about. Conlin wrote an article extolling Rollins as MVP. The author disagreed-he really thought David Wright should have been the MVP, and stated so in an email polite in form but dripping with derision. Conlin responded that he didn't really care what he thought.

That's pretty much where it should have ended, but of course it didn't, descending into an exchange of the blogger's snobberies and Conlin's idiocies. But at that point I feel like just letting them fight it out until they cool off-neither the snobberies nor idiocies have anything to do with me.

Swish, I am sorry man, but this is such a copout.

Conlin should be reporting the truth. Sure, Brittney Spears may sell papers, but that ain't news. Lying to us ain't news either. The thing is, he believes his lies, and that is where the danger is. We should expect more from our newpaper people.

An the Hitler reference was much more than an unfortunate choice of words. Ignoring the entire Jewish angle, he basically said all bloggers should be dead. Hell, if he said that he doesn't like any bloggers that should be enough reason to voice concern. Being old isn't an excuse.

Deadspin is now on the case:

Bill Conlin probably just shouldn't use e-mail at all

swish, I don't know where you got the blogger's first e-mail to Conlin as sarcastic and condescending; it seems pretty clear to me who was the disrespectful one in that exchange.

dajafi wrote:swish, I don't know where you got the blogger's first e-mail to Conlin as sarcastic and condescending; it seems pretty clear to me who was the disrespectful one in that exchange.

Maybe not as rash as those two words, but definitely high up on the snark scale.

So, I’m not going to bash you since it’s already been done. And hey, I already picked on your colleague Marcus Hayes.

*secretly hoping there's a picture of Conlin raising his arm awkwardly*

bucky, you can't be a blogger if you don't have some snark thrown in there

Bucky wrote:I will say, as a converted sabr-guy, that I disagree with the blogger, and he helps give credence to all those whom dismiss SABR.

What do you disagree with?

What happened to the BFF part of the thread title?

Disco Stu wrote:

Bucky wrote:I will say, as a converted sabr-guy, that I disagree with the blogger, and he helps give credence to all those whom dismiss SABR.

What do you disagree with?

that wright should be MVP, silly.

Bucky wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

Bucky wrote:I will say, as a converted sabr-guy, that I disagree with the blogger, and he helps give credence to all those whom dismiss SABR.

What do you disagree with?

that wright should be MVP, silly.

Well, so speaketh your non-SABR side. I think it is silly to invoke the idea that you are looking at this sabremetrically when you clearly aren't.

I am not saying Wright should be MVP. I think his team would have suffered more from his loss than the Phillies from Rollins. I think Pujols is really the MVP. Look at the team around him. I think Utley is more valuable to this team than Rollins. But, if you have two guys that are practically MVPs, how could they both be almost "most valuable".

dajafi wrote:Deadspin is now on the case:

Bill Conlin probably just shouldn't use e-mail at all

swish, I don't know where you got the blogger's first e-mail to Conlin as sarcastic and condescending; it seems pretty clear to me who was the disrespectful one in that exchange.

Well, to me, the blogger's attitude toward Conlin was clear from the get-go, and I'm willing to bet it was clear to you as well. He may have been reasonably well-behaved but it was clear it required an effort, much as a security guard or State Trooper might very well call you Sir while making it clear you're about ten seconds from kissing the pavement. I don't think this attitude would have been overlooked by Conlin, who I'm sure is pre-disposed to view such emails suspiciously anyway, and in this case would have been right to do so..

swishnicholson wrote:

dajafi wrote:Deadspin is now on the case:

Bill Conlin probably just shouldn't use e-mail at all

swish, I don't know where you got the blogger's first e-mail to Conlin as sarcastic and condescending; it seems pretty clear to me who was the disrespectful one in that exchange.

Well, to me, the blogger's attitude toward Conlin was clear from the get-go, and I'm willing to bet it was clear to you as well. He may have been reasonably well-behaved but it was clear it required an effort, much as a security guard or State Trooper might very well call you Sir while making it clear you're about ten seconds from kissing the pavement. I don't think this attitude would have been overlooked by Conlin, who I'm sure is pre-disposed to view such emails suspiciously anyway, and in this case would have been right to do so..

okay so Conlin felt he was being sneered at and rightfully so, BUT this excuses what he said?!! I know my parents never cared who started it, if you hit your brother, youre getting sent to your room.

The Red Tornado wrote:
okay so Conlin felt he was being sneered at and rightfully so, BUT this excuses what he said?!! I know my parents never cared who started it, if you hit your brother, youre getting sent to your room.

I don't think it excuses anything. I was just responding to dajafi's question about where I got the idea that the Blogger's initial email was derisive.

My only argument is that with each layer of increasingly less cordial responses, this becomes less of a professional situation of a writer responding to his reader and more of a personal pissing contest between two individuals, and that the causes of this descent into a pissing contest are not strictly one-sided. I think the context of Conlin's remarks thus becomes related less to his conduct of his professional duties and is more akin to a personal conversation.While the standards he is held too shouldn't differ in the two situations, and anyone is welcome to draw whatever unflattering conclusions they want from his words, the justified consequences of his actions CAN change. Conlin should have had sense enough to shut up , and should have had sense enough to use different language to express his distaste of bloggers, but i think he's just being an asshat because he's ticked off, not publicly propagating a deeply held and considered personal belief.

Unless you think he really wishes that a new Hitler would arise and put to death anyone who puts out a blog. If so then sure, go for it.

hurstad wrote:

Disco Stu wrote: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.

I know exactly what you mean. I just converted to Judaism just for the jokes. As a dentist, I need to have a full arsenal when I'm drilling my patients.

Surely wheelie worthy?

Having read through it, I'm less than impressed by both sides. Yer man from crashburn starts out being plenty sarky with conlin. Then bill conlin fires off some epically short sighted responses (mistaking him for a mets fan is epic) and vents his spleen on bloggers.

Why bother making the case to Bill Conlin? It's like running up to a sleepy old bear with no teeth and smacking him one, just to show everyone how tough you are. The guy has a blog, he can make his point there. That is part of the point of a blog.

Of course Conlin's going to respond like a tactless boorish schmuck. He's of that strain of curmudgeonly sports reporters who are frequently oppositional/reactionary not just for the hell of it, but to show how much more knowledgeable they are about sport. Every now and then he makes a salient point.

As for the hitler thing . . . well it's a dumb thing to say when you're writing in an age where all e-mail correspondence will get published if someone is going to find it offensive. And someone WILL find it offensive. I think it's got feck all to do with his attitude to judaism or indeed the holocaust. It's a particularly tactless way of saying how little he rates bloggers. Personally, I can't see how it's offensive beyond the usual 'y'all are better off dead as far as I'm concerned'.

I think it's particularly classy how quickly it descends to the point where conlin starts whining that this is an attack on his article and his career. The blogger should have never bothered in the first place, but once onechair said what he did, I don't think he should have published those comments. He should have just walked away. Conlin being tactless and boorish to correspondents is not news. Bloggers need to stop with the bear baiting.

Disco Stu wrote:

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.

Your feelings are incorrect. It does not bother me that people think this is offensive. It is. A skilled writer can find ways to cleverly say "I just don't like ya" without being crass. It's my opinion he was trying to be shocking, and he does know better.

I'm saying it's a shame that we, the consumers or electorate, have to wait until someone slips up to take them down. Trent Lott sucked, but it wasn't possible to take him down till he said something stupid that could be construed within the hierarchy of the unwritten laws of political correctness as offensive. Bill Conlin is doing the same thing right now.

Wouldn't it be better for these guys to come under heat or lose their jobs (either voluntarily or forcibly) because of years of crap than over a stupid (whether willful, hateful, or just stupid) thing they said? I don't deny Conlin's accountability at all, and I'm not saying the opportunity shouldn't be seized if one decides this is the time to seize it.

It's loosely analogous to Al Capone and his tax problems. It would have felt better to nail him for ordering executions and breaking the laws that really impacted other's lives.

Wizlah wrote:response.html]salient point[/url].

As for the hitler thing . . . well it's a dumb thing to say when you're writing in an age where all e-mail correspondence will get published if someone is going to find it offensive. And someone WILL find it offensive. I think it's got feck all to do with his attitude to judaism or indeed the holocaust. It's a particularly tactless way of saying how little he rates bloggers. Personally, I can't see how it's offensive beyond the usual 'y'all are better off dead as far as I'm concerned'.

People say truly offensive things in the public sphere because an anti-PC backlash enlists political support for even the vilest utterances. But, let's dissect what Conlin actually said:

[The only positive thing I can think of about Hitler’s time on earth–I’m sure he would have eliminated all bloggers. In Colonial times, bloggers were called “Pamphleteers.” They hung on street corners handing them out to passersby. Now, they hang out on electronic street corners, hoping somebody mouses on to their pretentious sites. Different medium, same MO. Shakespeare accidentally summed up the genre best with these words from a MacBeth soliloquy: “. . .a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. . .” ]

How can the only positive thing about Hitler be that he would have done something, but since the possibility didn't exist at the time, he didn't. That is like saying the only positive thing about my time on earth is that I would have traveled on the first star ship to the Orion nebula. Only I didn't and I couldn't.

And why could Hitler be depended upon to kill the bloggers? Because we know he killed millions of Jews, gypsies, mentally ill, physically disabled, politically liberal, etc. Hitler could pretty much be depended upon to kill anyone outside the orthodoxy of what nice Germans found acceptable under the status quo, even if it was viewing obp as preferable to batting average. He was just that dependable an exterminator, and that was the one positive thing about him. So, it is overly PC to criticize a favorable use of the Hitler card because... Because Hitler is irrelevant in the sense he equally well could have said Charles Manson?

Then we have the complete non-logic of this status quo-worshipper of all that the majority find right and wholesome thinking he is insulting his blogger opponents by saying they are equivalent to some of our most revered and courageous founding fathers. That stings!

But after two massive attacks of illogic in one paragraph, Bill shows his erudition by lettting us know he still has his book of quotes

SwishNicholson says:


[My only argument is that with each layer of increasingly less cordial responses, this becomes less of a professional situation of a writer responding to his reader and more of a personal pissing contest between two individuals, and that the causes of this descent into a pissing contest are not strictly one-sided. I think the context of Conlin's remarks thus becomes related less to his conduct of his professional duties and is more akin to a personal conversation.While the standards he is held too shouldn't differ in the two situations, and anyone is welcome to draw whatever unflattering conclusions they want]

No, this doesn't wash. If an e-mail regarding a published column is sent to a reporter at a newspaper at his newspaper e-mail addy and he responds from that addy, then he is acting as a newspaper reporter and representing his employer. A more heated back and forth does not shift the reporter's role from newspaper representative to private citizen. He is still in the process of responding to comments on his newspaper column via his newspaper address. This is like saying you can call up customer service at a company and if you stay in bounds on your end of the conversation but are hinting at snarky or critical that the customer service guy can shift into private citizen mode and swear at you. Not acceptable and equally not acceptable for Bill. If something was inappropriate for Bill to say on the first response to the ultrapolite nonsnarky post from your maiden aunt, then it was equally inappropriate for him to say it on his third response to a blogger. Bill should be professional enough to know that it is unwise and may be viewed as offensive to laud Hitler's proclivity for slaughtering loudmouth young critics.