Yes there is. That’s why I deleted most of it.
So before I reply, I think for context it is important to know if you are straight or gay. I have always been under the impression that you are straight. If I am wrong, my apologies. I don’t care, by the way, what your sexual preference is. But your post cannot be properly responded to without this info.
Why do you think that’s relevant?
What the…???
The best I remember he basically stated he was not going to go into the NFL unless he went in the 1st round. There was no way he was going to go in the 1st round. There was a damn good chance he wouldn’t be drafted at all but someone may have taken a chance at converting him to running back. There was no way he would be a quarterback. And there is no way anyone would waste a pick on him after he said he wouldn’t play if he didn’t go in the 1st round.
This is factually incorrect.
Nothing that you wrote, and nothing that Marley wrote in response, relies on a knowledge of the speaker’s own sexuality.
I explained why. But since you can’t figure out why I am asking, I am going to assume that you don’t know why i am asking. I am bookmarking this page. I think it is the first time you have actually publicly admitted that you don’t know something.
Actually, you are wrong. The only problem is that Marley23 (and you, apparently) can’t figure out why I asked, therefore in your minds, there is no possible reason the information is needed. The inability for you and Marley23 to not come up with a reason isn’t my problem, it’s yours.
To me, there is no reason why the information would need to be hidden. But it is Marley23’s business and his right to keep that private if he wants.
I am fascinated by both your (mhendo) and Marley’s ideas of what is “factually correct”. Since you have no idea why I asked, you can’t make a pronouncement like that. Well, wait. I take that back. You CAN, but you are wrong. Myopic thinking gets you to the exact point you expect to get to. Congratulations. You’ve proven yourself correct… To yourself! :dubious: well done.
Wouldn’t it have been better to answer the question (since there is really no need for it to be hidden on an anonymous message board, but hey. Whatever…) and waited to see WHY I asked that question first? If you didn’t agree with my reason (which you both would never agree now, since it would undermine your own position), you could have picked it apart in this thread.
I was fully prepared to explain why I asked, but I didn’t expect Marley23 to post a response to my message 2 minutes after I posted it. Who would? I guess the next time i get into a discussion with Marley23, I should expect him to be monitoring the SDMB for replies to any of his posts. He is the only person who is able to use the SDMB as an IM interface.
Marley23 says my initial complaint has “zero factual basis and zero internal logic”. :dubious: yeah, ok Marley23. Whatever you say. I don’t even know what “internal logic” even means in this context. Sounds like something on a computer chip.
I’d also like to know why mhendo’s post didn’t receive the same “Marley23 dissection”. Mhendo, you basically said the same thing i did, you just said it a bit nicer, I suppose.
So, even though you disagree that it was a “PC stunt” (which you put into quotes, seemingly attributing it to me, but I couldn’t find that phrase in any of my posts in this thread.). You did state:
And
How is that different than what I said? Yes, we used different words, but you acknowledge the reason ESPN showing the clip over and over were for ratings, not because of any other reason.
When one of ESPN’s own talking heads called the looping of the phone call, crying, kiss, and cake smashing over and over “gratuitous”, I think I was onto something.
Personally, i don’t have the free time Marley23 appears to have to dedicate to this board. (It’s 3:15 am eastern, and I have this time now because there is a sick family member, and the entire house is awake.)
I can’t help it that you or he can’t figure out why i asked. But since he refuses to tell me, I am not going to get upset about it. That’s just the way this part of the thread will end for me. PThat’s fine by me.
I am sure Marley23 will come back and claim some sort of victory, but he always does. That is his MO. Right or wrong, Marley23 is always right (at least to him). That’s just the way he rolls.
Oh, and I am sure you all know, but Sam signed with Oprah Winfrey to do a documentary about his time in training camp and it is being called a “reality show”. Are you still sticking to the idea that he is being treated like every other draft pick? Sam keeps saying he wants to be viewed a just a football player, but his choices seem to go against that.
And the NFL is claiming that neither Sam nor his agent ever informed them about a TV reality show starring Sam. The NFL and the Rams are apparently not happy. IMO, this was a bad decision by Sam. I’m sure Oprah’s reasons are altruistic also, and she isn’t doing this for ratings or money.
OK, genius, why not put us out of our misery then, and explain why a knowledge of Marley’s sexuality is crucial to your answering of his question. I mean, you clearly feel that it’s relevant, and we’re clearly too dumb to understand why, so why don’t you go ahead and enlighten us?
I have never once argued that Sam “is being treated like every other draft pick.”
I explained why. But since you can’t figure out why I am asking, I am going to assume that you don’t know why i am asking. I am bookmarking this page. I think it is the first time you have actually publicly admitted that you don’t know something.
Actually, you are wrong. The only problem is that Marley23 (and you, apparently) can’t figure out why I asked, therefore in your minds, there is no possible reason the information is needed. The inability for you and Marley23 to not come up with a reason isn’t my problem, it’s yours.
To me, there is no reason why the information would need to be hidden. But it is Marley23’s business and his right to keep that private if he wants.
I am fascinated by both your (mhendo) and Marley’s ideas of what is “factually correct”. Since you have no idea why I asked, you can’t make a pronouncement like that. Well, wait. I take that back. You CAN, but you are wrong. Myopic thinking gets you to the exact point you expect to get to. Congratulations. You’ve proven yourself correct… To yourself! :dubious: well done.
Wouldn’t it have been better to answer the question (since there is really no need for it to be hidden on an anonymous message board, but hey. Whatever…) and waited to see WHY I asked that question first? If you didn’t agree with my reason (which you both would never agree now, since it would undermine your own position), you could have picked it apart in this thread.
I was fully prepared to explain why I asked, but I didn’t expect Marley23 to post a response to my message 2 minutes after I posted it. Who would? I guess the next time i get into a discussion with Marley23, I should expect him to be monitoring the SDMB for replies to any of his posts. He is the only person who is able to use the SDMB as an IM interface.
Marley23 says my initial complaint has “zero factual basis and zero internal logic”. :dubious: yeah, ok Marley23. Whatever you say. I don’t even know what “internal logic” even means in this context. Sounds like something on a computer chip.
I’d also like to know why mhendo’s post didn’t receive the same “Marley23 dissection”. Mhendo, you basically said the same thing i did, you just said it a bit nicer, I suppose.
So, even though you disagree that it was a “PC stunt” (which you put into quotes, seemingly attributing it to me, but I couldn’t find that phrase in any of my posts in this thread.). You did state:
And
How is that different than what I said? Yes, we used different words, but you acknowledge the reason ESPN showing the clip over and over were for ratings, not because of any other reason.
When one of ESPN’s own talking heads called the looping of the phone call, crying, kiss, and cake smashing over and over “gratuitous”, I think I was onto something.
Personally, i don’t have the free time Marley23 appears to have to dedicate to this board. (It’s 3:15 am eastern, and I have this time now because there is a sick family member, and the entire house is awake.)
I can’t help it that you or he can’t figure out why i asked. But since he refuses to tell me, I am not going to get upset about it. That’s just the way this part of the thread will end for me. PThat’s fine by me.
I am sure Marley23 will come back and claim some sort of victory, but he always does. That is his MO. Right or wrong, Marley23 is always right (at least to him). That’s just the way he rolls.
Oh, and I am sure you all know, but Sam signed with Oprah Winfrey to do a documentary about his time in training camp and it is being called a “reality show”. Are you still sticking to the idea that he is being treated like every other draft pick? Sam keeps saying he wants to be viewed a just a football player, but his choices seem to go against that.
And the NFL is claiming that neither Sam nor his agent ever informed them about a TV reality show starring Sam. The NFL and the Rams are apparently not happy. IMO, this was a bad decision by Sam. I’m sure Oprah’s reasons are altruistic also, and she isn’t doing this for ratings or money.
I just explained that I’m not doing that. I assume Marley23 wants to keep his sexuality private. That’s his right. I’m not going to bully him into telling me now. Please read my posts.
I don’t recall attributing that to you.
But to be fair, I never used the phrase “PC stunt” either.
Actually, I believe that the main reason they did it was for ratings, not necessarily the only reason.
But my main point was not to disagree that ESPN was sensationalizing the clip. My main point was simply to note that sensationalism is what ESPN does all the time, so why do you care so much when they happen to do it in the case of a gay football player?
I see the distinction you are making.
I think it bothers me because (IMO) it cheapened the moment. You may and can disagree, but it WAS historical, it WAS a social turn of the page in this country. Running it once when it happened, and running it once an hour during SportsCenter would have been fine, because it was newsworthy. But to run it over and over again on the screen, while people were making a point about the draft pick, or whatever they were talking about was just to (again, IMO) to stir controversy and drive ratings. That (To me, anyway) was not what the moment was about and it shouldn’t have been exploited that way.
For instance, when the talking heads were just talking about the merits of Sam being drafted at all, they could have showed clips of him on the field, but they didn’t. They went back to that footage over and over.
Nowhere did I say that he didn’t have a right to celebrate with his significant other. And someone asked if we don’t see hetero players hugging and kissing their girlfriends. Of course we do. But we see that moment once, or in the case of a big pick, you may see it once an hour each hour during the SportsCenter run. But that is it.
I personally don’t need to see any PDA’s, hetero or homo, but if they show one, they should show the other. But I personally would prefer if they showed none of that personal footage and just showed the player getting his shirt or hat or whatever… But that will never happen, and I know it. ESPN’s ratings are growing on the draft each year because of the green room cameras. Personal moments will continue to be captured and shown.
I hope i made my point clearer. If not, I tried.
I already posted a cite that showed they aired the kiss when it happened and then didn’t show it again for at least an hour, which probably means it wasn’t broadcast for the rest of the draft coverage. Did they run it a bunch after that? I expect they did, but that’s what they do. They don’t need to treat it differently from any other piece of news I agree that showing the kiss when they were talking about his role with the Rams was probably the wrong call. I would say that analysts directly related to the game should go with game footage and the kiss or the cake footage should go with coverage of the social and personal aspects of his drafting. I think it’s fair to criticize them for broadcasting the kiss too much because they always go to excess with that stuff, but I don’t think it’s because they did some kind of harm to the gay rights movement or because it’s provocative or because there was anything private about that moment.
I fixed your post as you wanted it, Stink Fish Pot
I have read them.
But the fact that Marley may not be interested in discussing his own sexuality should not prevent YOU from explaining why you wanted or needed to know it in the first place. You claim that there is a valid reason that his sexuality would affect your response to his post. Why not explain that reason?
Let’s assume for a minute—just for the sake of the hypothetical—that Marley is gay. And let’s assume also—just for the sake of the hypothetical—that I am not. I agree with what Marley has been posting. If a gay person and a straight person each makes a similar argument to you in a case like this, would you answer each person differently, depending on his sexuality?
If so, then why not explain how the answers would differ? Doing that would clarify your position, and there would be no need to “bully” anyone into telling you their sexuality. If your position in intellectually tenable, you should be able to justify it, with or without Marley revealing his personal life to you.
I meant to add, Stink Fish Pot, that I’m not trying to give you a hard time here… well, I am a little… but mostly I am genuinely confused by your question. I don’t see it how it matters. I’m cringing at how PC this sounds, but I can’t think of an opinion I have on matters of race or gender or sexual orientation that I’d phrase differently based on who I’m talking to.
Well, Michael Sam survived the first round of cuts and made the Rams’ 75 man roster.
The next round of cuts is this Saturday, August 30th at 4:00 when the teams have to cut their roster from the 75 down to 53.
Sam has had a pretty good preseason, with a couple sacks, a few hurries, and a few tackles. He’s looked good, but it’s against the second and third teamers, so there is no way to tell. The Rams are pretty stacked, and their roster pretty set, at defensive end, so Sam is fighting an uphill battle. Add in that he hasn’t played much on special teams, and I’m not sure his odds are all that good to make the team. There’s just too much talent ahead of him.
This year the NFL has expanded its practice squad (a squad of young players where they are under contract, practice with the team, but don’t count against the 53 man roster) to 10 players, so I think there is a good chance he makes it on a practice squad, either with the Rams or with another team.
And if anyone needed another reason to despise ESPN, they sent out a reporter to ask Rams players about Michael Sam’s showering habits. Assholes.
And Chris Long’s response was “Dear ESPN: everyone but you is over it.”
Really? That’s awesome. I’m expecting Sam to end up on the practice squad at this point. The Rams are just too loaded at the position.
And if/when a team needs a DE/ST player, they can pluck him off the “taxi squad”.
He has no special teams experience, which is one reason his chances of staying on the main roster are low.