If they were going to promote Schotty, he'd have been named already. It's not gonna happen. He's the chick at the end of the bar at 2Am that you didn't want to tap, but the hot chick that you did want to bang has gone elsewhere. If we land the hot chick the skank will get mad and leave. Who, gives a fuck about Skankenheimer.
The image of Rex Ryan as "the one I did want to bang" really only does one thing for me: it convinces me beyond ALL reasonable doubt that I am NOT a closet homosexual. hmy: If there was a puking emoticon, I would have used that instead.
Well, like I said, I'm not high on Schotty at all. I don't want him as HC. I'm just looking at it from his perspective. He has some aspirations to be a HC... I'm sure he believes he's qualified, and from the looks of it, other teams may be considering that he is as well.
:lol: Just watchin SNY-TV this AM and while they were talkin about Rex being the favorite, they mentioned he may keep BS on as OC but made no mention that BS would want out if he does not get promoted to HC. It will be interesting to see how all this pans out. A week or 2 ago, Spags was going to be HC for sure in one of these vacancies and today its possible he may be going nowhere. The media is having a field day with this........
Notice: The Rex Ryan/Hot Chick analogy only goes so far as the situation. I, in no way feel, condone or expressly consent to comparing Rex to a shorty in any capacity other than situational. Because that would be g4y. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)
Yeah, amazing how Schottenheimer is a total asshole for wanting to leave town, even though that story has only appeared in a single place. Sort of like how Coles is a locker room cancer of the magnitude of Terrell Owens, even though that's been disproven a hundred times as well. New Yorkers have let themselves become convinced that they are the most knowledgible fans in all of sports. It's bullshit. New Yorkers are simply professionals at repeating, word for word, whatever the local "news"papers tell them they think.
See, normally, even when I have the polar opposite opinion from you, I at least respect your posts. Can't say that this time though. Nowhere did I claim to be better than anyone else. I never do. It really sickens me when people use that argument against me though. The fact is, I simply just use my brain whenever looking at a situation. If that makes me "better" than anyone else, then that's a shortcoming of the other person, rather than me attempting to be more than an average person. All I do is present the "other side" and the "what if" of stories, and I try to use what factual evidence is available, rather than the make-believe "information" the press releases under the guise of journalism. I don't simply jump to a conclusion based on what a reporter decides to make into today's "news."
Yeah I don't think it's just a NY thing though. Don't you think it's just people in general? If not, the whole "crowd mentality" theory wouldn't exist. Is it worse in metro areas? Yeah probably, but dude that original post came off in a bit of a high-brow manner. Ultimately, I tend to agree with the post, but at the same time people can only react to what they're being given. Just my opinion.
Fair enough. I always try to make the effort to not sound lofty in my posts, but the written word is hard to give "sound" to. My apologies if it comes from my written "tone." As for your post, sure, I agree it's people in general. I just think the average New Yorker has become convinced that he/she is somehow "smarter" about sports than Joe the Plumber out in West Bumblefux, yet he/she consistently quotes a story in one of the local rags that later turns out to be either an exaggeration of the actual story, or an outright fabrication. My approach to any story is to look at it from afar first. The first thing I consider is the source. If it's from someone like Canizzaro, my first thought is "This is probably bullshit." If it isn't substantiated by another writer, I usually don't bother even considering it to be true. The next thing I consider is the use of facts in the article. Is there actual data in there, or direct quotes from the people supposedly being quoted. Then I read what the quotes say, and see if there are multiple ways to interpret the words spoken. I'm clearly not immune to being misunderstood when I write, so why wouldn't Coles be misunderstood, especially if he were misquoted, or only certain parts of what he actually said were put into print. With this thread's story as an example, there is absolutely zero evidence beyond supposition to support the story. On top of that, the supposition is in direct opposition to what has been repeatedly reported elsewhere. I have to take that with a grain of salt before I buy into it. That doesn't mean it isn't true, but until I have a reason to believe otherwise, I have to assume it's just another fabrication.
