The OAO thread about Grant Napear's podcast

#31
I have not found time for Grants podcast and I don't listen to KHTK at all now. Grant should have just left the whole thing alone and moved on. As for Doug he is just watching out for his own self and his new gig.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#32
I have not found time for Grants podcast and I don't listen to KHTK at all now. Grant should have just left the whole thing alone and moved on. As for Doug he is just watching out for his own self and his new gig.
I sincerely disagree. DC has talked several times about race issues, and is intelligent, well-informed, and has his own opinions. He's actually just being professional by not addressing it directly in the way some might like him to.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#33
I sincerely disagree. DC has talked several times about race issues, and is intelligent, well-informed, and has his own opinions. He's actually just being professional by not addressing it directly in the way some might like him to.
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:
  1. Doug Christie is obliged (as in, he "owes" it to the listeners) to talk about this.
  2. Doug Christie wants to talk about this, but is biting his tongue for business reasons.
  3. Grant Napear is entitled to a response from Doug Christie.
... And I'm not sure why anybody should believe that any one of those things is true.
 
#34
Not going to fall for this disgusting attempt by Grant to make this about Doug Christie. Grant is responsible for his own words. No one else.

Marcus Breton was on Grants show and now Jerry Reynolds. I bet he asked Doug and Doug gave him the finger. Being a co-worker doesn't make you close friends.
 
#35
Not going to fall for this disgusting attempt by Grant to make this about Doug Christie. Grant is responsible for his own words. No one else.

Marcus Breton was on Grants show and now Jerry Reynolds. I bet he asked Doug and Doug gave him the finger. Being a co-worker doesn't make you close friends.
Jerry Works for the Kings, Marcos for the Bee. Doug works at KHTK (and the Kings) that fired Grant. He stepped down from the Kings.
 
Last edited:
#37
I sincerely disagree. DC has talked several times about race issues, and is intelligent, well-informed, and has his own opinions. He's actually just being professional by not addressing it directly in the way some might like him to.
And what part of that is not watching out for his Gig?
 
#38
[Mod Hat on]


There's nothing to say. This isn't rocket science: posts about Napear's podcast were moved to the #NBA folder because Grant Napear no longer works for the Kings. #OffTheCourt is for Kings-related off the court discussion. Discussion of Napear's podcast belongs either here, or in #General. I mean, sorry you don't get to have every discussion topic that interests you in one spot, for your convenience?

If there appears to be enough interest in Napear's podcast to continue discussing the non-political aspects of it, I'll go ahead and split it back into its own thread. But, if it turns out to be more general sports-related than basketball specific, #General is probably where it's headed.

[Mod Hat off]
I understood the situation and I appreciated it with Capt. Factorial's mod response. I don't know if this kind of snarky comment from a mod is needed. But what do I know?
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#41
And what part of that is not watching out for his Gig?
Directly, none of it. At least to me. You make it sound like he's doing something duplicitous or hypocritical to keep his job. What I'm saying is that maybe the reason he kept his job is because that is what he is truly like and truly believes. There is a difference.
 
#42
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.
 
#46
Directly, none of it. At least to me. You make it sound like he's doing something duplicitous or hypocritical to keep his job. What I'm saying is that maybe the reason he kept his job is because that is what he is truly like and truly believes. There is a difference.
I think you and Slim are reading things into the words I wrote that are not there.

IMO DC is keeping his own counsel. Taking care of and minding his own business. And there is nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#47
I think you and Slim are reading things into the words I wrote that are not there.

IMO DC is keeping his own counsel. Taking care of and minding his own business. And there is nothing wrong with that.
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?
 
#48
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.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#50
Honestly as I wrote, I have not listened to KHTK since they fired Grant.

IMO the firing was political.
And I don't think that there was anything political about it. But, then again, the line that separates what counts as "political" has become so blurred, that it's lost its meaning.
 
#51
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.
What movement did they speak out against? Just so I'm clear.
 
#52
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?
Grant is a big boy and can/will take care of himself.

Ditto for Doug, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I think I am done with this discussion because IMO taking it further will lead to politics and possibly religion.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#53
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.
  1. Maybe when you talk to "random people," there's a huge divide; we aren't talking to the same "random people."
  2. 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.
Do I think that there is a number of sports media personalities who oppose BLM privately, but won't do so publicly, that is greater than zero? Yes. Do I think that that number represents the majority of sports media personalities, or is even statistically significant? Not really. Why should I?

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.
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?
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#54
What movement did they speak out against? Just so I'm clear.
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.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#56
Funny.
Your comments literally just answered my question. What did I want you to do is to just not replying afterward due to my, "objection".
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?
 
Last edited:
#57
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?
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.
 
#58
  1. Maybe when you talk to "random people," there's a huge divide; we aren't talking to the same "random people."
  2. 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.
Do I think that there is a number of sports media personalities who oppose BLM privately, but won't do so publicly, that is greater than zero? Yes. Do I think that that number represents the majority of sports media personalities, or is even statistically significant? Not really. Why should I?


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?
I'm going to bow out of this. Conversing with you is literally the least fun thing about this board.
 

Warhawk

Give blood and save a life!
Staff member
#60
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.
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?