DoyleG Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 Whatever. Keep giving him the ammo to rip soccer apart. He certainly would be reading this forum and seeing your little complaints. He certainly had to be laughing his ass off over Grizzly's demands for a retraction. You guys wouldn't even know what sarcasm is if it sat on your face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG You guys wouldn't even know what sarcasm is if it sat on your face. Post of the Year. The poor little oppressed Albertan kid with a chip on his shoulder the size of Commonwealth Stadium and all the wit of a paperclip is now preaching about sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG You guys wouldn't even know what sarcasm is if it sat on your face. Post of the Year. The poor little oppressed Albertan kid with a chip on his shoulder the size of Commonwealth Stadium and all the wit of a paperclip is now preaching about sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 I'll bet he voted for the western separatists too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard I'll bet he voted for the western separatists too. You have evidence that I committed treason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 You tell us? The current Conservative party has its roots in western separatism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Domi Rulezz Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG You have evidence that I committed treason? No he doesn't. That's why he said "I'll bet". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 29, 2006 Author Share Posted January 29, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG You guys wouldn't even know what sarcasm is if it sat on your face. Let me tell you about this human thing we call "irony"...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by DoyleG So why keep doing it? Are you guys just a miserable bunch looking for punishment? Since I happen to agree with much of Mr. Perkins' writings....I have no reason not to write about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Since I happen to agree with much of Mr. Perkins' writings....I have no reason not to write about them. Thank you for being honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 If Perkins is so adamant to get his coffee money back maybe he should look at other coffee priced public money sapping organizations like the english crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 this is really off topic, but in what way do cdn taxpayers subsidize british royalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Just to get this back on topic. I vote for Jerkins. McClown is a close second. As for Landsberg, who the hell watches OTR anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Dave this is really off topic, but in what way do cdn taxpayers subsidize british royalty? We don't, those who think we do are ignorant or mis-informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdroze Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Perkins by a mile. Although McCown may clearly dislike soccer, I find his analysis generally quite intelligent, and he tends to be clear about any biases he has. Perkins seems to have some major anti-MLSE/anti-soccer complex, and he's working it all out through his column, instead of being considerate to the rest of us and taking it to his therapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by rdroze Perkins by a mile. Although McCown may clearly dislike soccer, I find his analysis generally quite intelligent, and he tends to be clear about any biases he has. Perkins seems to have some major anti-MLSE/anti-soccer complex, and he's working it all out through his column, instead of being considerate to the rest of us and taking it to his therapist. He is a columnist! That is what they do write columns that are more subjective in nature than the pure "stories" that are written by non-columnists. Without them, the sports pages would be nothing more than a list of scores and stats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdroze Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan He is a columnist! That is what they do write columns that are more subjective in nature than the pure "stories" that are written by non-columnists. Without them, the sports pages would be nothing more than a list of scores and stats! I have no problem whatsoever with columnists, and I agree completely that newspapers and other media need a healthy balance of both fact and opinion. There are a lot of sports columnists/opinionists whose work I greatly admire. A guy like Damien Cox, for example, does an excellent job with the Star, and even though I often disagree with his opinion, he's intellectually honest and clearly isn't trying to push a political agenda. Ditto other high-profile opinionists like McCown, Cherry, Brunt, even Strachan. Give me good, honest analysis, and I'll enjoy your work. Give me frothy hysteria, and I'll nominate you for biggest frickin' idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Oranje Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by rdroze I have no problem whatsoever with columnists, and I agree completely that newspapers and other media need a healthy balance of both fact and opinion. There are a lot of sports columnists/opinionists whose work I greatly admire. A guy like Damien Cox, for example, does an excellent job with the Star, and even though I often disagree with his opinion, he's intellectually honest and clearly isn't trying to push a political agenda. Ditto other high-profile opinionists like McCown, Cherry, Brunt, even Strachan. Give me good, honest analysis, and I'll enjoy your work. Give me frothy hysteria, and I'll nominate you for biggest frickin' idiot. rdoze, you've made the point nicely! A lot of the people criticizing Perkins are well aware of of the difference between a reporter and a columnist. I certainly made my criticism aware of the distinction: I've worked for several major media outlets (on the editorial side, though not covering sports) and continue to do so. A column isn't a place to just rant -- though, sadly, there are some media outlets and individuals who seem to think that's the only prerequisite. A good columnist should provoke -- but his/her opinions should be rooted in fact or backed up with solid, multi-layered arguments if the facts are open to interpretation. Nor should a columnist use their valuable editorial real estate to advance an agenda day after day with a disregard for the opposing argument or point of view. You can see things the other way without diminishing out your own argument. What irritates me so much about Perkins isn't that he's "anti-soccer." Let the commentators who don't like the game say what they want -- as it was pointed out earlier, that is their job, after all. What bugs me about Perkins is that he appears to have the blinders on and is driving the stadium question without any acknowledgement people in favour of stadium may, just maybe, have a somewhat valid argument. Also, his continued suggestion that Toronto's existing soccer facilities could host the WYC (regardless of what he thinks of the MLSE deal itself) gives me a sneaking suspicion he either hasn't considered all the facts -- or he has, and he's just being disingenuous. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 If anyone wants a good indication of how much an effect Perkins agenda has had on the general thinking here, it is worth noting that the Conservative candidate he used his column to promote & advocate voting for lost the Toronto riding he was in by over 11,000 votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca If anyone wants a good indication of how much an effect Perkins agenda has had on the general thinking here, it is worth noting that the Conservative candidate he used his column to promote & advocate voting for lost the Toronto riding he was in by over 11,000 votes. That would be my riding, where there was never any doubt Liberal incumbent John Godfrey would lose his seat in Parlament (and who by the way was officially endorsed by Mayor Miller, due to Godfrey's support of city-friendly policies). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Richard We don't, those who think we do are ignorant or mis-informed. Is the monarchy league mis-informed then? they claim it only costs the amount of a chocolate bar a year. However I will admit that this figure is a few years old, and it was part of a Newsworld coverage on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOareaFan Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by Calgary Oranje What irritates me so much about Perkins isn't that he's "anti-soccer." Let the commentators who don't like the game say what they want -- as it was pointed out earlier, that is their job, after all. What bugs me about Perkins is that he appears to have the blinders on and is driving the stadium question without any acknowledgement people in favour of stadium may, just maybe, have a somewhat valid argument. Also, his continued suggestion that Toronto's existing soccer facilities could host the WYC (regardless of what he thinks of the MLSE deal itself) gives me a sneaking suspicion he either hasn't considered all the facts -- or he has, and he's just being disingenuous. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him. Let's be fair to him...he did not say the current facilities could host the event. He said if you spent the tax money going into the new stadium on renovating the current facilities then they could. As you could probably guess from my postings here, I agree (although I would only upgrade/renovate Lamport here and then direct any surplus gov't money to upgrading facilities in other cities for the overall good of the game across the country). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 quote:Originally posted by morrison Is the monarchy league mis-informed then? they claim it only costs the amount of a chocolate bar a year. However I will admit that this figure is a few years old, and it was part of a Newsworld coverage on the issue. That's the cost of maintaining the governor general establishment and sponsoring the occasional royal visit. Eliminating the governor general position and transferring the head of state duties to a PM or president wouldn't eliminate those costs, just disguise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morrison Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 ah so the correct term would be supporting monarchy, not the british royals directly. makes sense that the costs would stay relatively the same if it funded a said President. but for a cup of coffee a year, i don't get too worked up about it. preferences are another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgary Oranje Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 quote:Originally posted by TOareaFan Let's be fair to him...he did not say the current facilities could host the event. He said if you spent the tax money going into the new stadium on renovating the current facilities then they could. As you could probably guess from my postings here, I agree (although I would only upgrade/renovate Lamport here and then direct any surplus gov't money to upgrading facilities in other cities for the overall good of the game across the country). You're right about Perkins suggesting upgrades and improvements, and I should have been more precise. It doesn't change my point in saying that he has still gone waaay overboard to belittle the new SSS while making his own arguments against it. There are merits to Perkins' alternatives and they can be debated here and in the pages of the Star. Why he irritates so many people here is he affords no merit to any view on the stadium debate that opposes his. Someone who debates honestly -- as a good columnist should -- has to be prepared to acknowledge the opposing view and counter it rationally. Instead, Perkins has gone on what appears to be a crusade. My main point, though, was just to say people who are riled at Perkins aren't necessarily doing so because they don't know the difference between a reporter and an opinion writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.