The big Bill Belichick & UNC football catch-all thread

DonerKebab said:
This board? A board where pages and pages are devoted to disagreements over the most trivial and often inconsequential things? Has
No offense, but I often found that when people accuse others of being sheep like, they usually are guilty of it the most. I get keeping an open mind, but sometimes if you keep that door so open without any critical filtering, flies get in.

This board has some of the brightest people with the most diverse ideas I ever seen.

ps. I will also add that this is a short coming of AI as well (currently), treating all sources as credible and we get "you should eat a rock" or "glue pizza"
Click to expand...
Sheep-like is quite a large step from group think. I dare so there are carnivores and herbivores on this board, but group-think on social issues is not uncommon.
 
CrazyNotCrazie said:
For the sake of everyone else here I think we should stop this conversation. I have nothing else to add that won't get me in trouble. Perhaps I could have been more careful with my words but you could be a lot more careful in assuming the worst of a news outlet that is highly reputable. Everyone makes mistakes. But I am willing to bet they are a lot more honest and less biased than most of the sources where other people get their news. I will leave it at that. I do not want to "silence" or "cancel" people though I'm sure you will allege that is what I'm doing. But you are swimming upstream here. This is not "group think". This is the logic and beliefs that this country was built on and existed on (not perfectly) for 200+ years before "alternate facts" came into vogue.

I thought DBR was a break from this nonsense. Apparently not.
Click to expand...
No I don't feel like I'm being cancelled, for the most part I'd say the convo is respectful in disagreement. I simply disagree that it is OK for a journalist to be asked multiple times to stay on subject and then post video only of when the interviewee finally reacts negatively to the off-topic question. It isn't Dr Evil scale of wrong; it is simply not a respectful way to treat people and creates a false impression while giving extra spice to the product.

Swimming upstream is not always a bad thing. As Linda Ellerbee said "Only dead fish swim with the stream all the time."
 
Kfanarmy said:
No I don't feel like I'm being cancelled, for the most part I'd say the convo is respectful in disagreement. I simply disagree that it is OK for a journalist to be asked multiple times to stay on subject and then post video only of when the interviewee finally reacts negatively to the off-topic question. It isn't Dr Evil scale of wrong; it is simply not a respectful way to treat people and creates a false impression while giving extra spice to the product.

Swimming upstream is not always a bad thing. As Linda Ellerbee said "Only dead fish swim with the stream all the time."
Click to expand...
What is your evidence that there was this single "subject" or "topic" from which "how did you meet?" was excluded? That's the starting point from which all of your other assumptions are wrong.
 
"When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview," a CBS News spokesperson said in a statement. "There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation. This was confirmed repeatedly with his publisher before the interview took place and after it was released."

I believe CBS News.
 
SkyBrickey said:
"When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview," a CBS News spokesperson said in a statement. "There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation. This was confirmed repeatedly with his publisher before the interview took place and after it was released."

I believe CBS News.
Click to expand...
Again....its Sunday Morning. There is no reason NOT to believe them. I cannot for the life of me remember an actual contentious interview on that program. Not to say there never was one, but its just not what they're known for.
 
HoKogan said:
Again....its Sunday Morning. There is no reason NOT to believe them. I cannot for the life of me remember an actual contentious interview on that program. Not to say there never was one, but its just not what they're known for.
Click to expand...
There is an alleged logic to not believing them but it is 100% political (though that would be denied by the non-believers). PM me and I am happy to explain further - I'm on double secret probation for addressing a similar topic so don't want to risk addressing it publicly as no matter how careful I try to be, I will anger a mod.
 
Not sure it’s going to attract Pulitzer attention (due to topic, not talent), but this line should be considered for a Hall of Fame somewhere for “making the best of it as a journalist.”

“A crowd of about 300 people had gathered Sunday afternoon inside a large ballroom at the Holiday Inn Portland-By the Bay, which had not seen this much excitement since April, when the hotel hosted Furcationland 2025, a convention for people who enjoy dressing as anthropomorphic animal characters.” -Scott Cacciola
 
AustinDevil said:
What is your evidence that there was this single "subject" or "topic" from which "how did you meet?" was excluded? That's the starting point from which all of your other assumptions are wrong.
Click to expand...
I guess the consensus is that CBS would not have agreed to formal prohibitions. That said and as stated up thread, the interview was advertised/billed to cover Belichick's book and football topics by CBS. The interviewee and his publicist list very much the same topics. Belichick indicates he asked the interviewer to stay on topic multiple times before the interaction that was included in the published interview. To my knowledge, no one has refuted his claim, rather CBS has retorted that there were no preconditions.
SkyBrickey said:
"When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview," a CBS News spokesperson said in a statement. "There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation. This was confirmed repeatedly with his publisher before the interview took place and after it was released."

I believe CBS News.
Click to expand...
and yet, if they wanted, they could post the full 35-minute interview, and we could see if Belichick asked them several times to stay on topic or not. CBS' statement does not refute Belichick's claim. It side-steps. The controversy is more interesting / valuable than the reality I'm guessing.
 
Kfanarmy said:
I guess the consensus is that CBS would not have agreed to formal prohibitions. That said and as stated up thread, the interview was advertised/billed to cover Belichick's book and football topics by CBS. The interviewee and his publicist list very much the same topics. Belichick indicates he asked the interviewer to stay on topic multiple times before the interaction that was included in the published interview. To my knowledge, no one has refuted his claim, rather CBS has retorted that there were no preconditions.

and yet, if they wanted, they could post the full 35-minute interview, and we could see if Belichick asked them several times to stay on topic or not. CBS' statement does not refute Belichick's claim. It side-steps. The controversy is more interesting / valuable than the reality I'm guessing.
Click to expand...
Could we please move on? Mods? This is not Breitbart.
 
CrazyNotCrazie said:
There is an alleged logic to not believing them but it is 100% political (though that would be denied by the non-believers). PM me and I am happy to explain further - I'm on double secret probation for addressing a similar topic so don't want to risk addressing it publicly as no matter how careful I try to be, I will anger a mod.
Click to expand...
This is a bit weird...There are a great many people in the world, and each sees the world through different lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top