1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jewish player sues Anaheim Ducks, saying he was mistreated

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by MTM, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    So you think bigotry is ok?
     
  2. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    Oh for chrissakes. Damn, you figured me out, oop. I'm pro bigot.
     
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Stoney, Bailey accused the coach, his boss, of harrassment based on his religion. Basically, he is acccusing the coach of bigotry and you are saying he wrong to fight back. So you tell me.
     
  4. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    He was right to fight back . . . during the time he was employed by the franchise.

    The day he was traded is the day there was nothing to "fight back" for.

    And filing the suit more than 16 months after he was freed from that hostile environment just stinks.
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Should he have done it while he was there? Yes, that would have been better. That doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to do it now.
     
  6. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    Not once did I ever say "he wrong to fight back." I did point out the flaw in Zag's reasoning that he should just "get over it" when the financial incentives lean elsewhere. Perhaps that post could be construed as a comment on the litigious nature of our society, but it sure as hell doesn't indicate that I think "bigotry is ok."

    And, on a not completely unrelated note, you're still a shrill insecure pea-brained buffoon.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    How else was he supposed to fight back? Do you have a better idea?

    No, you really don't. You just have to hide behind childish name-calling because you know your argument doesn't hold up. Did I say you supported bigotry? No. I was pushing you to think things through. Apparently, that was expecting far too much of you.
     
  8. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    You don't even know what the fuck my argument is, you dimwitted weasel. I never once said he was wrong to sue. That was not my point, and that is not what I said.

    And I have zero interest in getting in the board's umpteen thousandth thread-locking oop pissing match, so I'd prefer not to discuss this with you further.
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    So, instead of trying to clarify when you think you are being misunderstood, you go into attack mode and start hurling insults, then you blame me for this getting ugly. I wonder if you have the mental capacity to realize how foolish that makes you look.
     
  10. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    I would've been happy to clarify if it'd been someone else who'd questioned that post. And if it had been questioned in a manner that had not dishonestly tried to spin my words as pro-bigotry. But I have seen FAR too many prior examples showing where the attempt to engage in rationale debate with oop leads, and it is generally a bad place.

    But here's a hint: not every post must be construed as as a definitive "pro" or "con" stance, as you commonly seem intent on simple-mindedly reading other people's posts. It is possible to express a thought on some of the nuances and side issues raised by a story without it making the speaker vehemently pro or anti anything.
     
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    In other words, you saw my name on the post and went into attack mode, yet you call me defensive. Comic.
     
  12. Stoney

    Stoney Well-Known Member

    I think it was more the "you think bigotry is ok" that provoked attack mode. But the identity (and reputation) of the speaker certainly didn't help.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page