The OAO thread about Grant Napear's podcast
- Thread starter Iced Espresso
- Start date
Yeah, believing that Christie is "watching out for his own self and his new gig" by not commenting on this presupposes that at least one (or more) of the following things has to be true:
- Doug Christie is obliged (as in, he "owes" it to the listeners) to talk about this.
- Doug Christie wants to talk about this, but is biting his tongue for business reasons.
- Grant Napear is entitled to a response from Doug Christie.
So I read the Bee article. I'm a bit confused. Grant's comments could (and may) apply to Carmichael Dave as well. I may be wrong, but was under the assumption that Grant was planning to sue or may already be in a lawsuit with KHTK. If so, I'd imagine KHTK would've be put a gag order on all its employees.
I think we are reading what you wrote, and that is what is coming across. To me, anyways. And I'm not saying I'm right if we disagree, BTW.
For instance, your post above does not clarify your previous posts and I am still confused on your thoughts. We might be agreeing, but I can't tell from what you posted. You are saying stuff like "watching out for his own self and his new gig", which, to me, indicates a selfishness or a protectiveness on his behalf, etc., possibly at the expense of Grant or his friendship. Am I interpreting you correctly?
For instance, your post above does not clarify your previous posts and I am still confused on your thoughts. We might be agreeing, but I can't tell from what you posted. You are saying stuff like "watching out for his own self and his new gig", which, to me, indicates a selfishness or a protectiveness on his behalf, etc., possibly at the expense of Grant or his friendship. Am I interpreting you correctly?
Barkley and Shaq are the only guys in the sports world I can think of that have spoken out against the movement. Almost everyone else involved with sports and television are unanimously for it. Yet when you talk to random people who aren't on TV or radio and are able to speak candidly about it, there is a huge divide.
I think there are a lot of talking heads that are just going to go with whatever doesn't get them fired. Whether that's Doug or not, I can't tell you.
But let's not act like there's no chance in the world of it. If someone's opinion is that Doug is stuck between a rock and a hard place and had to make a difficult decision to not back up his friend to keep his job, then that's just their opinion. There's no way to prove it one way or another but it's certainly not some ridiculous impossibility.
I think there are a lot of talking heads that are just going to go with whatever doesn't get them fired. Whether that's Doug or not, I can't tell you.
But let's not act like there's no chance in the world of it. If someone's opinion is that Doug is stuck between a rock and a hard place and had to make a difficult decision to not back up his friend to keep his job, then that's just their opinion. There's no way to prove it one way or another but it's certainly not some ridiculous impossibility.
I'm not sure what you want me to do about the fact that @Capt. Factorial is a faster typer than I am?
Your objection is noted?
Your objection is noted?
- Maybe when you talk to "random people," there's a huge divide; we aren't talking to the same "random people."
- From my perspective, the last sentence of the above quoted text, particularly the bolded part, is only relevant if you believe that everybody on TV and radio is lying about their true feelings about BLM, with the exception of Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley.
It might not be a "ridiculous impossibility," but I find it to be ridiculously cynical. Unless somebody has a reputation of, "This guy isn't who he pretends to be, when the cameras are on" (and, AFAIK, Doug Christie does not), why would your default presumption be that their feelings are not genuine?
Neither Barkley nor O'Neal, TTBOMK, have ever publicly criticized BLM. However, comma, both have spoken out in support of police, which is considered a de facto anti-BLM position, since the movement was started to oppose police brutality. And Shaq is a whole-ass cop, so that's hardly surprising.
I do think that it's theoretically possible to support the police and oppose police brutality, but I also think that usually ends up being a line that is too narrow, and too winding, for most people to walk, effectively.
I do think that it's theoretically possible to support the police and oppose police brutality, but I also think that usually ends up being a line that is too narrow, and too winding, for most people to walk, effectively.
So... just so we're clear, you kicked this whole thing off by challenging the mod staff with a confrontational "What do you have to say?" about this topic being moved to this subfolder, and then, when I told you what I have to say, you feel some kind of way about it? And, when you responded to what I said, I'm not supposed to say anything back?
Help me help you.
EDIT - Actually, I apologize: @King Baller started it. That being said, you responding to my reply to King Baller to tell me that you appreciated @Capt. Factorial's response could just as easily be taken as "snark," on your part, so I'm not sure why you expected me not to respond in kind?
Help me help you.
EDIT - Actually, I apologize: @King Baller started it. That being said, you responding to my reply to King Baller to tell me that you appreciated @Capt. Factorial's response could just as easily be taken as "snark," on your part, so I'm not sure why you expected me not to respond in kind?
Last edited:
You know what? It's completely my fault.
Your first comment after @Capt. Factorial's response just rubs me the wrong way all the way. From the "mod hat on/off", to "there is nothing to say" as your opening, to "sorry you don't get to have every discussion topic that interests you in one spot, for your convenience?" are just directed to @King Baller's casual statement that you read into it like he was complaining.
But as I've seen frequently on this forum, mods stop people from posting anything personal without any connection to the actual thread discussion so it is my fault for even commenting about your response regardless of how pointless I feel that is.
I shouldn't have bothered you, I couldn't block you because of your mod status so I should've just left. Have a good one.
Your first comment after @Capt. Factorial's response just rubs me the wrong way all the way. From the "mod hat on/off", to "there is nothing to say" as your opening, to "sorry you don't get to have every discussion topic that interests you in one spot, for your convenience?" are just directed to @King Baller's casual statement that you read into it like he was complaining.
But as I've seen frequently on this forum, mods stop people from posting anything personal without any connection to the actual thread discussion so it is my fault for even commenting about your response regardless of how pointless I feel that is.
I shouldn't have bothered you, I couldn't block you because of your mod status so I should've just left. Have a good one.
There is a long history of shifting threads to the appropriate forums. There is reason for that. And it gets old having folks keep complaining about stuff that is routine board maintenance.
"Mods" are generally open to folks posting a variety of stuff as long as it doesn't violate the board rules. These rules have kept us up and running when lots of other places have folded or degraded. It also (generally) attracts a higher level of discussion for many topics.
So, what, exactly, are you complaining about again? That a post got moved to the appropriate forum and you didn't like it?
"Mods" are generally open to folks posting a variety of stuff as long as it doesn't violate the board rules. These rules have kept us up and running when lots of other places have folded or degraded. It also (generally) attracts a higher level of discussion for many topics.
So, what, exactly, are you complaining about again? That a post got moved to the appropriate forum and you didn't like it?