Delete This Account

here's the link to the full piece. http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=11657262 jw

oh, my gawd, you're being silly. there really is no point arguing with you. and somehow, it's like a car-wreck, i can't look away. you are an egotistical, pretentious wannabe know-it-all, capable of little, but yet somehow supported by a truly Jupiter Planet-sized over-inflated gene of self-righteous stubborness that could well be spotted in far-flung galaxies seen as a mere glimmer of light by only the likes of the hubble telescope. in the future, i shall elect not to respond to your posts only because it may be more beneficial to my health to pound my head against brick walls, over, and over and over and over again. it is better this way, in so much that i know that at some point one thing will eventually give, more than likely me, but call me a romantic. :wallbash: now, let me proceed by attempting to bash that wall of bricks one more time by responding to the points that you so mindlessly raise because you fail to read or, perhaps, comprehend what i've written previous: yes, there is a rush for players to leave following a game, but some writers do approach players and speak to them when the cameras are turned off. this applies to post-games and after practice. but of course you know what goes on as you have some kind of x-ray vision or karnac capabilities, right. please re-read any of my posts and spell out to me where i wrote "unlimited" as far as access goes. jw with all due respect, of course.

be on the lookout for a piece i'm writing on Kenny's tailgate. the first (short) version was just filed to my editors. i'm still in the midst of completing a much longer and extensive version into what's happening. jw

except for you, who would be able to continue to have it both ways. complaining that no one in our business knows how to do their job, and making it more difficult for us to our job. how very convenient Mr. Happy. you certainly have a way of pretzeling logic based on your posts in this thread and the past. i thought i considered myself a true contrarian. i don't hold a lick to you, who has failed to generally agree with anything i've ever posted. and even when you concede that you might be wrong, you persist in proceeding with the argument in which you've acknowledged to be well mistaken. boy, i want to live in your world. actually, on second though ... strike that. jw

let me try to explain a few things here because of this near-puritanical fear of nudity. 1) there are off-limits areas where players can get changed. 2) some players, very few, elect to get changed in front of reporters. also, i don't ever recall interviewing a player before they had some clothes on. 3) travel schedules are so tight that it becomes very difficult to get proper access to visiting team's players already, as they are rushing out the door to get to the bus. 4) the Bills players lounge is down the hall from the locker room. the trainer's room is in a different room, and completely walled off from the locker room. the equipment room can be seen from the locker room, but serves as a getaway place for some players who don't want to speak to reporters. 5) due to most building configurations, it would be next to impossible to establish yet another room where players can be made available. 6) anyone who's essentially done this job for as long as i have is generally immune to nudity. and waht's the big deal, really. i'd hope the strangeness of that wore off for most of you in 9th grade gym class. 7) anyone who is in the locker room to see nudity is generally weeded out and has their credentials revoked. it's doesn't do any good to have someone in the business do this. that said, i've known of only one occassion of that ever happening. 8) and Mr. WEO, even after acknowledging that i might be right on a thing or to, you continue to bang your silly one-note drum of "happiness." how is it that you seem to act like you know so much about something you are so unfamiliar with. jw

see, i don't know how this is infringing on a player's privacy be being in a locker room. it's been a long-held tradition that the locker room is a place where reporters and players can interact. suddenly, it's not. as i've noted, there are many areas of the bills facility -- the showers, the trainers room, the equipment room, the players' lounge -- where players do and can have their privacy. and it's not as if the locker room access is open-ended. we are only allowed in there for a certain period of time. is it too much to ask to have them available in a relatively casual setting for 40 minutes? this is somehow an infringement on something? ... and i know a player would answer my call. many have and many have even returned my calls on the rare occassion i need to talk to them. i just don't like to make this a habit. i'm sure they don't either. jw

right, my mistake. you've never been happy with anything except, as i've recently uncovered, that you do favor Christmas. you think some of the anecdotes that turn into good leads on player profiles, or Aaron Schobel contemplating retirement, or insights into the mood of the locker room, mood in regards to teammates, injuries (not announced by teams), other nuggets of information are plucked out of thin air. you seem to dislike the "give 110 percent" quotes. well, put a player in room with 20 TV cameras and leave it at that, and that's generally more of what you'll get. and to all those who think player privacy is such a key issue, if you deny locker room access and prevent the media from building these relationships, well, i predict it will lead to more reporters calling players at home during off-hours. that's not what any one wants, as i respect a player's privacy during his off-hours. ... jw well, that's where you're wrong, but i'm sure you'll find a way to dispute me on that one. jw

and the good reporters wait for the microphones and cameras to leave and ask the questions they want to get the insight that doesn't come out of these scrums. fairly and unfairly, the media gets criticized for having a pack mentality. if you shut down access to the locker room, then the pack mentality and more 110% quotes is essentially all anyone's going to get. ... but thanks for explaining my job to me once again, Mr. Happy. jw

what a surprise. a poster attempts to flex his internet muscles by being as bigoted and ignorant as possible and when that poster gets called out on it, says he was somehow taken out of context. touche for proving many of my points. jw

in fear of libeling cavemen, i will not make any comparisons, though neanderthal does seem to come to mind. ... a burka. oh my god. so what you're suggesting is that good-looking reporters should disfigure themselves? ummm, but please, continue digging this deep hole of ignorance. jw

thanks once again Mr. Happy for having a true insight into how we, as reporters, do our jobs. the next time you have an issue in your line of profession, please feel free to contact me so that i can offer up my extensive knowledge on that front in a quid pro quo. jw

respectfully, players get paid a lot of money and should be held accountable. they do have a certain right to privacy, as we all, do. but they are public figures and, under league rules, REQUIRED to make themselves available to the media. by cutting back on accessibility to the media (and by extension, the public) then isn't the league merely coddling a bunch of people, who already get plenty already. anyone, by their action, is open to ridicule. and putting up some sort of additional barrier won't ultimately prevent those from proving they deserve ridicule. jw

i haven't covered a women's sporting event in years. from what i recall, reporters asked to interview players in the hallway following a game. it's quite awkward to do so and i'm not sure what the solution of that is. female reporters do have the same access as male reporters. and let's get back to the topic at hand: this female reporter wasn't in the locker room. she was allegedly harassed outside it. so the idea of having a separate area for athletes wouldn't have worked in this situation, right? doesn't this instance, if true, ultimately come down to childish and rude behavior that wouldn't be called for no matter what sex the reporter was? jw two decades from now, nobody will know who you are. ... good for you. jw

rude is rude, evidently, too. jw

an open locker room is how we are able to do our jobs and provide as much insight to the public as we possibly can. it's the given-and-take at a players' locker -- after practice or after a game -- where the best stuff is said, and the best observations made. this is also a place where reporters are allowed to interact with players, joke with them, chat them up about other topics, see if they're limping, angry, sad or happy. this is where a lot of the personal relationships are built. i can see how some might think a separate media area will work. it won't. players have numerous areas they can hang out in that are out of bounds to reporters. however, NFL players are required under league rules to make themselves accessible to the media on Wednesdays and after games. and that requirement on Wednesday is half-an-hour or so. that's where the separate media area doesn't work. a player is most comfortable at his locker. it would be inconvenient for them to have to hang around a separate room for that period of time. my 2 cents. jw

McGee had been nursing a foot injury earlier in the week, which may have had something to do with that. jw

this is so wrong, let me sum up your post this way: jw

so, you're not a fan of the Hip then either? jw

don't we already have a "most over-rated" thread going already ... jw

cheap shot alert: i came to the board just now seeing if, as some have alleged, that the Dolphins were still the joke of the AFC East ... jw

sorry, i missed you at Hammers this morning. was there for about half-hour. jw

ok, let's review, before this thing goes a way off topic. i found this original post (above) meaningless, obtuse and off the mark, and another indication (and note the first time this poster's done it) of how easy it is to kneejerk a banal reaction in regards to the media. somehow, Mike Harrington's column, is irrelevant or poorly written because, well, why? the Dolphins-Bills rivalry remains vibrant? puh-leaze. pass the baloney. it's a rivalry in division only, and holds very little of the hot water it did a long long time ago. and then this whole thing segues into another tangent, with someone suggesting the Dolphins are the joke team of the AFC East. i happened to disagree with that, and was in time called "an angry little man," and someone who's jumped on some Bills-bashing bandwagon. oh, i see how i'm wrong. jw respectfully, i don't think that was Mike's message at all -- or at least not the one i got from reading the piece that morning. i thought the point was the rivalry's not much of a rivalry any more and there was a time here when just about anyone could'a named the Dolphins starting QB, these days not so much. of course, people here know it's Henne. i'm curious how many others around town might know. that bills fans took it personally is another matter and perhaps, a reflection on them? jw

i've liked what i've seen, too. and i'm on record on this board in picking the bills to finish 6-10. note, i've also picked the bills to win this weekend in a certain pool i'm in. jw

wow, i was pretty harsh on them. then again, i've had good practice spotting some bad football. you realize though, you'll ruin my reputation with at least one poster. me and my objectivity. jw oh, and welcome back?

that's my piece. Gailey said "doubtful," or at least he'd be listed as doubtful, but he doesn't have to provide that list until Friday. the short-term/long-term comment made me worry. likely more tomorrow. jw