I just had to repost this...it was too funny to me. So here's the back story...earlier this month some sunshine pumping ninny on another board posted that he was tired of Kyle Veazey's obvious attempts to slander our beloved school at every opportunity (paraphrased).
I suggested that this man might be lacking in mental faculties (also paraphrased). What follows is our exchange of private messages following said posts. The text in quote blocks are his messages, the others are mine. The names have been changed to protect the stupid:
That's exactly what I'm talking about...he doesn't thrive on writing negative articles about us at all. I've met him. I've talked to him. He's a decent guy who is doing his job to the best of his abilities to ensure that he continues to be gainfully employed. He does not have a secret agenda to bring about the downfall of MSU by writing negative pieces on us. That's ridiculous, and I stand by the accusation that anyone who thinks that is...get ready for it...a moron. If the shoe fits...
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I said exactly what I meant.
People are free to have whatever opinion they want, and I certainly don't think that just because someone disagrees with me they are automatically a moron. I -DO- think that the black helicopter paranoia about a beat writer is a little overboard and, thusly, moronic.
We (MSU) are a school in the SEC, we compete with some of the greatest talent in the country year in and year out, and as a result of that we're not going to win all our games. If he reports that he's not being negative, he's doing his job. We also recruit several teenagers each year for the 'big 3' sports, and not all of them always make the best decisions. Teenage boys do stupid things from time to time. If he reports that he's not being negative, he's doing his job. Can you really not grasp that concept?
And for the record, if you could care less of my opinion then can you explain to me what possessed you to feel compelled to send me a private message about all of this?
Also you might want to decide if you're (please see your own faulty grammar) really "cordial enough to respect other's opinions, even though (you) may disagree without calling them names" since you obviously don't respect my opinion or that of Mr. Veazey who is actually paid to report ALL pertinent activity associated with our athletic programs, and not just pumping sunshine.
And finally, regarding what I can only take to be your puffed up sense of pride on the "name calling" front, perhaps you should take a look at what you titled your message to me and think about that again, hypocrite. (His message was titled something to the effect of "Dude, what are you, 10?")
Thanks, and I'll have a great day, with or without your supposed blessing.
For what it's worth on the grammar topic, I constantly see people who cannot communicate clearly in their own native tongue, and I do use that as a gauge of sorts when determining said person's relative intelligence/education. Certainly there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking if someone doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're", "then" and "than", or "their", "they're" and "there" then I can safely assume that their intelligence is somewhat lacking. It's no different than making an assessment as to what sort of person someone is by looking at the clothes they wear, the car they drive or what church they attend. Everyone does it whether or not they know, or even admit it to themselves. That being said I'll not comment again on any grammar or spelling mistakes I see.
I can only assume that you gave me a synopsis of your resume in order to impress me or in some way lend credence to your opinion. Your comprehension of 'how the game is played' is not a matter of topic, however. I also know how football is played. Congratulations.
Here is a thought...how about, instead of sitting back and hurling accusations at a man who is, by all accounts, doing his job, perhaps you could put forth some proof to this theory of yours that VZ is writing pieces with a negative slant.
I feel that the criteria should be as follows (feel free to add anything you think would be relevant):
- supply an article in which you feel VZ has added an unnecessarily negative slant.
- if you feel it would add to your cause, cite specific examples of what Jackie told you to "watch out for."
- cite your specific reasons for the belief that this piece or any part thereof is unduly negative.
- the negativity of factual statements is not valid for the purposes of this exercise. For instance, if one of our players gets a DUI because he was driving while intoxicated this cannot be considered negativity because of it's factual nature.
If you can give me one solid example I will let that be the end of it. Should be easy enough, right?
Lol, that's good. So let me get this straight...you post a crackpot theory about how Kyle Veazey is out to get us as a university. I tell you you're being foolish in no uncertain terms. You then PM me to confront me about my accusation. When I provide support for my actions you attempt to tell me I'm wrong. When I ask for proof, you simply say that if I am attempting to defend this person then I must obviously BE said person I'm trying to (supposedly) defend and call the matter closed. That, sir, is classic conspiracy theory calibur paranoia.
By the way, just so we're clear, I am -NOT- Kyle Veazey...he actually posts under the username "The Story Board" and signs his posts as Kyle Veazey. I'd urge you once more to consider brushing up your reading comprehension skills...good day to you, sir.
I suggested that this man might be lacking in mental faculties (also paraphrased). What follows is our exchange of private messages following said posts. The text in quote blocks are his messages, the others are mine. The names have been changed to protect the stupid:
<redacted> said:
That's exactly what I'm talking about...he doesn't thrive on writing negative articles about us at all. I've met him. I've talked to him. He's a decent guy who is doing his job to the best of his abilities to ensure that he continues to be gainfully employed. He does not have a secret agenda to bring about the downfall of MSU by writing negative pieces on us. That's ridiculous, and I stand by the accusation that anyone who thinks that is...get ready for it...a moron. If the shoe fits...
<redacted> said:
Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. I said exactly what I meant.
People are free to have whatever opinion they want, and I certainly don't think that just because someone disagrees with me they are automatically a moron. I -DO- think that the black helicopter paranoia about a beat writer is a little overboard and, thusly, moronic.
We (MSU) are a school in the SEC, we compete with some of the greatest talent in the country year in and year out, and as a result of that we're not going to win all our games. If he reports that he's not being negative, he's doing his job. We also recruit several teenagers each year for the 'big 3' sports, and not all of them always make the best decisions. Teenage boys do stupid things from time to time. If he reports that he's not being negative, he's doing his job. Can you really not grasp that concept?
And for the record, if you could care less of my opinion then can you explain to me what possessed you to feel compelled to send me a private message about all of this?
Also you might want to decide if you're (please see your own faulty grammar) really "cordial enough to respect other's opinions, even though (you) may disagree without calling them names" since you obviously don't respect my opinion or that of Mr. Veazey who is actually paid to report ALL pertinent activity associated with our athletic programs, and not just pumping sunshine.
And finally, regarding what I can only take to be your puffed up sense of pride on the "name calling" front, perhaps you should take a look at what you titled your message to me and think about that again, hypocrite. (His message was titled something to the effect of "Dude, what are you, 10?")
Thanks, and I'll have a great day, with or without your supposed blessing.
<redacted> said:
For what it's worth on the grammar topic, I constantly see people who cannot communicate clearly in their own native tongue, and I do use that as a gauge of sorts when determining said person's relative intelligence/education. Certainly there are exceptions to every rule, but generally speaking if someone doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're", "then" and "than", or "their", "they're" and "there" then I can safely assume that their intelligence is somewhat lacking. It's no different than making an assessment as to what sort of person someone is by looking at the clothes they wear, the car they drive or what church they attend. Everyone does it whether or not they know, or even admit it to themselves. That being said I'll not comment again on any grammar or spelling mistakes I see.
I can only assume that you gave me a synopsis of your resume in order to impress me or in some way lend credence to your opinion. Your comprehension of 'how the game is played' is not a matter of topic, however. I also know how football is played. Congratulations.
Here is a thought...how about, instead of sitting back and hurling accusations at a man who is, by all accounts, doing his job, perhaps you could put forth some proof to this theory of yours that VZ is writing pieces with a negative slant.
I feel that the criteria should be as follows (feel free to add anything you think would be relevant):
- supply an article in which you feel VZ has added an unnecessarily negative slant.
- if you feel it would add to your cause, cite specific examples of what Jackie told you to "watch out for."
- cite your specific reasons for the belief that this piece or any part thereof is unduly negative.
- the negativity of factual statements is not valid for the purposes of this exercise. For instance, if one of our players gets a DUI because he was driving while intoxicated this cannot be considered negativity because of it's factual nature.
If you can give me one solid example I will let that be the end of it. Should be easy enough, right?
<redacted> said:
Lol, that's good. So let me get this straight...you post a crackpot theory about how Kyle Veazey is out to get us as a university. I tell you you're being foolish in no uncertain terms. You then PM me to confront me about my accusation. When I provide support for my actions you attempt to tell me I'm wrong. When I ask for proof, you simply say that if I am attempting to defend this person then I must obviously BE said person I'm trying to (supposedly) defend and call the matter closed. That, sir, is classic conspiracy theory calibur paranoia.
By the way, just so we're clear, I am -NOT- Kyle Veazey...he actually posts under the username "The Story Board" and signs his posts as Kyle Veazey. I'd urge you once more to consider brushing up your reading comprehension skills...good day to you, sir.
