John "thats not football" torts

[KnowItAll]

KIA, did you listen to the audio? I'm guessing probably not, given how quickly you responded. Six minutes from my post to yours? I question whether you even read my whole post.

I am fast reader and I understood it all. I just didn't buy it or see it the same as you.

[KnowItAll]

KIA, did you listen to the audio? I'm guessing probably not, given how quickly you responded. Six minutes from my post to yours? I question whether you even read my whole post.

I am fast reader and I understood it all. I just didn't buy it or see it the same as you.

[KnowItAll]

KIA, did you listen to the audio? I'm guessing probably not, given how quickly you responded. Six minutes from my post to yours? I question whether you even read my whole post.

I am fast reader and I understood it all. I just didn't buy it or see it the same as you.

[KnowItAll]

KIA, did you listen to the audio? I'm guessing probably not, given how quickly you responded. Six minutes from my post to yours? I question whether you even read my whole post.

I am fast reader and I understood it all. I just didn't buy it or see it the same as you.

[KnowItAll]

KIA, did you listen to the audio? I'm guessing probably not, given how quickly you responded. Six minutes from my post to yours? I question whether you even read my whole post.

I am fast reader and I understood it all. I just didn't buy it or see it the same as you.

[sj-roc]

Looks like you're pretty fast on clicking submit, too.

But back to my first question, did you listen to the audio?

[KnowItAll]

Looks like you're pretty fast on clicking submit, too.

But back to my first question, did you listen to the audio?

damn computer acting up, or else the site did. If you hadn't responded so quick I might have been able to do so deleting, sigh

I don't have speakers operational at the moment, but I don't think I need to listen to it. I heard him make the comment and there is no extenuation circumstance that makes it ok. He was not just kidding.

[sj-roc]

Looks like you're pretty fast on clicking submit, too.

But back to my first question, did you listen to the audio?

damn computer acting up, or else the site did. If you hadn't responded so quick I might have been able to do so deleting, sigh

I don't have speakers operational at the moment, but I don't think I need to listen to it. I heard him make the comment and there is no extenuation circumstance that makes it ok. He was not just kidding.

If you heard him make the comment, why did it take you three and a half days to get all worked up over it when it only took you all of six minutes to read and respond to my detailed breakdown?

Edit: Did you catch him say the "I'm sorry, Ben" part (twice)? Did you hear the discussion some twenty minutes afterward between MS & DT breaking down that whole episode and identifying who this Ben person was? You say you don't think you need to hear the audio, but I think you do. TBH I was kind of on your side until they broke it down and made clear what was happening. I invite anyone reading this to listen to the audio and offer an interpretation differing from mine.

[KnowItAll]

Looks like you're pretty fast on clicking submit, too.

But back to my first question, did you listen to the audio?

damn computer acting up, or else the site did. If you hadn't responded so quick I might have been able to do so deleting, sigh

I don't have speakers operational at the moment, but I don't think I need to listen to it. I heard him make the comment and there is no extenuation circumstance that makes it ok. He was not just kidding.

If you heard him make the comment, why did it take you three and a half days to get all worked up over it when it only took you all of six minutes to read and respond to my detailed breakdown?

Edit: Did you catch him say the "I'm sorry, Ben" part (twice)? Did you hear the discussion some twenty minutes afterward between MS & DT breaking down that whole episode and identifying who this Ben person was? You say you don't think you need to hear the audio, but I think you do. TBH I was kind of on your side until they broke it down and made clear what was happening. I invite anyone reading this to listen to the audio and offer an interpretation differing from mine.

I see it as him acting on reflex showing his real colors, then immediately realize his err and tried to backpeddle from it.

[Toppy Vann]

Thanks SJ for the write up - but you are right - you'd have to actually hear the audio and know the context.

I saw it on TSN and no context which is why he probably should not have said it - or made it clear that he was joking as KIA makes a good point.

The reality is that headlines and leads get reads - the rest of the story not so much. Also a guy like him gets quoted and fans pick up on that.

The Canucks HC is a bit of a loud mouth and shoot from the hip.

[sj-roc]

If you heard him make the comment, why did it take you three and a half days to get all worked up over it when it only took you all of six minutes to read and respond to my detailed breakdown?

Edit: Did you catch him say the "I'm sorry, Ben" part (twice)? Did you hear the discussion some twenty minutes afterward between MS & DT breaking down that whole episode and identifying who this Ben person was? You say you don't think you need to hear the audio, but I think you do. TBH I was kind of on your side until they broke it down and made clear what was happening. I invite anyone reading this to listen to the audio and offer an interpretation differing from mine.

I see it as him acting on reflex showing his real colors, then immediately realize his err and tried to backpeddle from it.

It was aimed at Saskatchewan native and Canucks communication director Ben Brown right from the get-go, if you listened to the whole audio (which you still haven't indicated doing so) it's clear. Even from his apology (twice), delivered somewhat in jest, it's clear there's nothing malicious going on here. He's clowning the Riders and Ssk in general the way we here on LB do the same. If there's anyone you should be ticked off at, it's Blake Price who played you (and others no doubt) by posting such a misleading tweet without offering any context for the remark. Maybe he was unaware of the context, I don't know but it probably wouldn't matter anyway since it's pretty much his job as part of the media to stir the pot anyway and get folks like you outraged. But it seems DT was certainly aware of what was going on. He was there. He heard it. Were you there?

If you really feel this way, how about you call up Sekeres and go after HIM and DT for "letting this slide"? Other people posted objections based on your OP but then I broke the whole thing down from the actual audio of the incident (which you still haven't heard apparently) and then the big pile-on mysteriously stopped. Except from you. Why are you the only one who can't seem to let this go? I've posted all sorts of facts to support my position. Where are your facts?

[Toppy Vann]

SJ.. remember one thing here.

Many like me just saw a tweet or the one liner - that alone is destined to not be forgotten by others.

Again, we read headlines and at times they are wrong given the facts that aren't read.

[sj-roc]

Thanks SJ for the write up - but you are right - you'd have to actually hear the audio and know the context.

I saw it on TSN and no context which is why he probably should not have said it - or made it clear that he was joking as KIA makes a good point.

The reality is that headlines and leads get reads - the rest of the story not so much. Also a guy like him gets quoted and fans pick up on that.

The Canucks HC is a bit of a loud mouth and shoot from the hip.

I agree that the optics of it are bad if you don't have all the facts but I stand by every word I've written in this thread. Ironically KIA declared this evening in another thread title "what a pathetic species we are" and frankly this observation could apply to the human tendency to overreact to things before you have all the facts. I think such overreaction says as much or perhaps more about the audience than the messenger.

The media will always have their own agenda so I was immediately suspicious when I saw this thread. I've already admitted it took me a while to get to the bottom of it (no thanks to the fact that the crucial audio file refused to finish downloading past 91% for me ) but frankly I feel a whole lot better that "I took the road less travelled by and that has made all the difference" (Robert Frost).

[sj-roc]

SJ.. remember one thing here.

Many like me just saw a tweet or the one liner - that alone is destined to not be forgotten by others.

Again, we read headlines and at times they are wrong given the facts that aren't read.

You're very correct, Toppy.

The truth is, the quote as it was presented just struck me as a very preposterous thing to say, even by JT's standards. TBH I was initially somewhat perturbed by the remark and if my sleuthing hadn't turned up truths to the contrary I would have joined the chorus in criticising him. This happily wasn't the case so I wanted to clarify the situation. KIA seems not to be sold on my arguments but I guess you can't please everybody.

This episode has made me envision the following thought experiment. Let's turn this around and suppose, purely hypothetical situation, Benevides made a remark about the Canucks that came off rather cutting from the way the media framed it. What would the reaction on here be? Would we just let it slide? Would we jump down his throat? Or would we reserve comment until we got more facts to see if the truth turned out to be rather more innocent than what we were initially led to believe?

[Toppy Vann]

SJ.. remember one thing here.

Many like me just saw a tweet or the one liner - that alone is destined to not be forgotten by others.

Again, we read headlines and at times they are wrong given the facts that aren't read.

You're very correct, Toppy.

The truth is, the quote as it was presented just struck me as a very preposterous thing to say, even by JT's standards. TBH I was initially somewhat perturbed by the remark and if my sleuthing hadn't turned up truths to the contrary I would have joined the chorus in criticising him. This happily wasn't the case so I wanted to clarify the situation. KIA seems not to be sold on my arguments but I guess you can't please everybody.

This episode has made me envision the following thought experiment. Let's turn this around and suppose, purely hypothetical situation, Benevides made a remark about the Canucks that came off rather cutting from the way the media framed it. What would the reaction on here be? Would we just let it slide? Would we jump down his throat? Or would we reserve comment until we got more facts to see if the truth turned out to be rather more innocent than what we were initially led to believe?

Probably if the Lions HC trashed the Canucks or NHL some would cheer while I'd hope most of us would whoa, what are you thinking!!!

I think we CFL fans are more sensitive as we've heard the NFL wannabees and the hockey folks ad nauseum for too long...lol