Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[Doc]

40 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

The devil made you say that, didn't he?  ?

 

More likely senility.

[nucci]

4 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Realistically whether you believe in him or not, you cannot say that for certain

 

nobody not even the smartest man in the world knows what happens when we die

 

Nothing may happen, you may come back to earth as a toad who honestly knows

 

But what lies beyond... Nobody has an actual clue

Yet I have so many people telling me what will happen

Edited August 9, 2020 by nucci

[Chandler#81]

6 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Realistically whether you believe in him or not, you cannot say that for certain

 

nobody not even the smartest man in the world knows what happens when we die

 

Nothing may happen, you may come back to earth as a toad who honestly knows

 

But what lies beyond... Nobody has an actual clue

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

“Everything there is need to know we already know.”
-Every generation, ever 

[Royale with Cheese]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

A problem I won't encounter. 

Jesus is going to come down from Heaven riding a blue Buffalo and when they run by you, he’s going to clip you in the nuts with cleats that were worn by Josh Allen when he jumped over Anthony Barr.

 

[Thurman#1]

On 8/8/2020 at 2:08 AM, whatdrought said:

 

He’s giving his perspective from his worldview, that’s how that works. If people do as he says, they will end with loving people (note he didn’t classify any specific people group who will or won’t be loved)

 

Marcel is saying his answer is unacceptable because he doesn’t agree with his worldview, which is fine, but goes to the OP’s point that instead of being objective and reporting on the athletes worldview, he’s editorializing and saying it’s an unacceptable view based on his disagreement with it. - thus making his opinion the story.

 

 

 

IMO Marcel isn't commenting on his worldview at all.

 

I think he's saying that even having had a couple of months to specifically work on his understanding of the issues, to contact people and organizations that could have deepened his knowledge on it and to find ways of demonstrating a commitment to learning on this area, that Fromm instead addressed the whole issue with generalities. He used lots of nice language but didn't really give any specifics about what he'd done to demonstrate that he was trying to work on himself and deepen his understanding of what he'd done wrong and what he could do to improve.

 

To me, Fromm's comment was a lost opportunity. He had a chance to show growth and seriousness but instead he just continued with the mea culpa. Nothing horrible whatsoever, of course. But also nothing to show development or commitment to deep consideration. Instead, no specifics whatsoever. He'd have done a ton better to give some names and thoughts of the people he had some of those difficult conversations with.

 

Look at what Drew Brees did when he said things that drew such a backlash. He headed right into the conversation and made himself aware and involved and spent some time with people who had some expertise and involvement with the issue. That's the sort of thing Fromm could have done.

[Sig1Hunter]

2 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

I’m glad you have all the answers. Now, how about the winning powerball numbers?

[Buffalo716]

2 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

I mean I don't think it even has to do with Christianity

 

let alone all the Buddhist and Hindu and Jewish and Christian doctors who believe in some type of God or afterlife

 

You don't have all the answers

[purple haze]

15 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

I would not argue that racism has existed through the centuries, however, the movement of BLM is a new construct with old Marxist, intersectional, critics race theory tenants. It seeks to confuse everything and deconstruct society, and then consolidate power for itself in the reimagined new world order. A socialist/racist dystopia with fascist thought control. It’s all a power grab.  
 

I reject the idea of systemic racism in today’s society.  The fact that you say “you can just observe” is just absolutely ridiculous. To those who are all about anti-racism today, absolutely everything is racist. The racist ideologies of the past do not continue on today in systemic fashion. There are some racists (and will unfortunately always be) but they are the exception not the rule anymore.  There are racists against every race, including against whites (I reject the idea that racism is purely oppressor over operessor, that wrong idea is a new construct too). There will always be people who simply hate, they are the fringe. 
 

It’s not lost on me that you surreptitiously added in the date 1619, in a nod against the fiction that is the 1619 project which serves to try and rewrite history in a racist manner. 
 

You can say, individually, not all white people are racist and I agree with you but the book “white fragility” which is being adopted and taught in corporations around the country, asserts that if you’re whites and you don’t agree, you’re racist and you’re hiding it.  If you agree you’re racist and you need to work against racism for the rest of your life and genuflect to the movement, but you can never rid yourself of racism. All simply because of the color of your skin, where have I heard that before? 
 

When I observe everyday Americans and their daily activities, very rarely will I see or hear anything racist. Your flippanr comment that people can just “observe” does not hold water. Its clear based on your response that you hold “lived experiences” more important than actual hard data which completely turn the entire idea that BLM started on its head and shows you how ridiculous it’s pretenses are.
 

According to raw and official statistics from the gorvernment, Rougjly 1000 deaths (this number has been steady like this for decades) by cops happen every year. In a country that of over 350 million people that is a minuscule number which is anything but systemic, but we aren’t talking about even 1000 are we?  No because the majority is police killing or white people. So let’s give the benefit of the doubt and give the percentage of 40 percent are black deaths at the hands of cops. What BLM is concerned about is white on black cops that were done for racist reasons. The majority of killings are justified (attacked the cops, death by suicide, etc). So let’s knock that down to 100. So 100 are black people being killed by cops that are not necessarily done the right way.  Studies actually show that blacks are far more likely to die at the hands of a minority officer, so let’s knock a that number down the o about 30. Some of those are just simply bad policing or negligent with no racist undertones to them, let’s knock that down the to about 10-15. 10-15 could potentially be due to racist motivations. If true those people she be prosecuted for that reason, but there is no way you can all 10-15 incident systemic. Yet we see civil unrest due to “systemic racism” in police killings. It’s an absolute farce. What do I know, I’m using what people like you probably think is racist, numbers.

 

Simply saying that there are so many things wrong with my statement and then going on a tangent about all these other amorphous ideas that don’t even speak to my argument at all, does not make you right, instead it makes you look silly. 

Because you do not want to acknowledge a thing exists, does not make a thing not exist.  Because you speak aggressively, at times, ignorantly, does not make you accurate or correct or, even, reasonable.  History will continue to back me up.  And lastly, I do nothing surreptitiously.  However, as I said, we’ll agree to disagree.  Enjoy your Sunday. ?

[Mike in Horseheads]

7 hours ago, BringBackFergy said:

Fromm could have cleared this whole thing up if he said, for example: Unlike the religious community, with notable exceptions, the atheist community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly diverse attitudes about different things,

 

 

You should have said that 26 pages ago, we'd be at 50 pages by now if you did

[HamSandwhich]

1 hour ago, purple haze said:

Because you do not want to acknowledge a thing exists, does not make a thing not exist.  Because you speak aggressively, at times, ignorantly, does not make you accurate or correct or, even, reasonable.  History will continue to back me up.  And lastly, I do nothing surreptitiously.  However, as I said, we’ll agree to disagree.  Enjoy your Sunday. ?

Yes, attack character, that’s all you have. The phrase that’s said over and over again, and is not correct is that anyone not part of this critical race theory bs is on the wrong side of history. Facts, yes actual facts, don’t care about your feelings. 
 

Side note, interesting that you think you can tell a persons tone by what they write. Things often get lost in translation in the ether, but it’s not surprising you would think you could determine my disposition given what you believe. 

Edited August 9, 2020 by HamSandwhich

[whatdrought]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

IMO Marcel isn't commenting on his worldview at all.

 

I think he's saying that even having had a couple of months to specifically work on his understanding of the issues, to contact people and organizations that could have deepened his knowledge on it and to find ways of demonstrating a commitment to learning on this area, that Fromm instead addressed the whole issue with generalities. He used lots of nice language but didn't really give any specifics about what he'd done to demonstrate that he was trying to work on himself and deepen his understanding of what he'd done wrong and what he could do to improve.

 

To me, Fromm's comment was a lost opportunity. He had a chance to show growth and seriousness but instead he just continued with the mea culpa. Nothing horrible whatsoever, of course. But also nothing to show development or commitment to deep consideration. Instead, no specifics whatsoever. He'd have done a ton better to give some names and thoughts of the people he had some of those difficult conversations with.

 

Look at what Drew Brees did when he said things that drew such a backlash. He headed right into the conversation and made himself aware and involved and spent some time with people who had some expertise and involvement with the issue. That's the sort of thing Fromm could have done.

 

All valid points. My line of disagreement with what you’re referring to is that I don’t see Fromm’s personal history and pursuit of growth as related to the conversation that Marcel is trying to start.

 

Simpler put, I think he can learn from his mistakes without having to have an opinion on what’s happening in the current culture.

 

Additionally, im perfectly happy with the idea that Fromm can learn not to make stupid jokes, while also not being completely supportive of what’s being done and said right now- and in that context, saying anything in disagreement with the current movement would be fatal. Not saying that’s what happened, but it would explain his feeling like he needed to not come out and make statements.

 

I also don’t think Brees is the archetype of what should be done here. Rather he is an example of how to bow to the crowd and save face after the outrage mob gets on your case, but I suppose that breakdown is a matter of what your personal thoughts about Brees’ original comments are. 

[whatdrought]

8 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

 

Scientific observation to prove metaphysical theory... hmm... I’m convinced. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

9 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

riiiight... Nobody knows the process of death.?‍♂️ There’s only farms of decaying corpses for study, unimaginable scientific and medical knowledge about the process of death -down to a minute by minute understanding. “If you die, you die” End of story. Everything else is fanciful imagination created by vanity and unsubstantiated hope introduced through fear and manipulation. 

Even the characters involved in ‘the stupidest story ever told’ are mind-bendingly ridiculous. Triune god?  Immaculate Conception? Ascend/descend in a universe? Adam, Eve & Lilith? BWAHAHAHAHAHA ?

NDE’s are a verified occurrence for which traditional medicine has little explanation. Beyond that, yes the afterlife is a faith issue; given what the stakes are, I’ll gladly accept the free gift Christ promised for preservation of my soul. Jesus Himself is confirmed to have lived—so either He is who He claimed to be, or He was the biggest fraud/snake oil salesman this side of a Kirby vacuum cleaner—there’s no inbetween about that! Those who say He was a good man but not the Savior are missing that point—accept all or none at all. It’s everyone’s free will to choose for themselves. 
 

It should also be noted that those who knew Jesus best during His earthly ministry, the disciples outside of Judas, all to a man died as martyrs for they would not stop proclaiming that Jesus was who He said He was...they paid for what they said was the truth with their lives. Don’t know about you, but I would never willingly die for anyone who I actually knew to be a charlatan, FWIW. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by NoHuddleKelly12

[Sig1Hunter]

38 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

Scientific observation to prove metaphysical theory... hmm... I’m convinced. 

Christmas sounds like a real hoot at Chandler’s house!

[GunnerBill]

7 hours ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

NDE’s are a verified occurrence for which traditional medicine has little explanation. Beyond that, yes the afterlife is a faith issue; given what the stakes are, I’ll gladly accept the free gift Christ promised for preservation of my soul. Jesus Himself is confirmed to have lived—so either He is who He claimed to be, or He was the biggest fraud/snake oil salesman this side of a Kirby vacuum cleaner—there’s no inbetween about that! Those who say He was a good man but not the Savior are missing that point—accept all or none at all. It’s everyone’s free will to choose for themselves. 
 

It should also be noted that those who knew Jesus best during His earthly ministry, the disciples outside of Judas, all to a man died as martyrs for they would not stop proclaiming that Jesus was who He said He was...they paid for what they said was the truth with their lives. Don’t know about you, but I would never willingly die for anyone who I actually knew to be a charlatan, FWIW. 

 

So the existence of Jesus - that is documented historical fact. The existence of the disciples.... that is a lot more sketchy. Beyond Apostle James who we know was real and is documented as the "brother of Jesus" cue significant theological debate about whether that is intended to convey a sibling relationship or a close bond there is scant historical evidence for the existence of the others. 

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

All valid points. My line of disagreement with what you’re referring to is that I don’t see Fromm’s personal history and pursuit of growth as related to the conversation that Marcel is trying to start.

 

Simpler put, I think he can learn from his mistakes without having to have an opinion on what’s happening in the current culture.

 

Additionally, im perfectly happy with the idea that Fromm can learn not to make stupid jokes, while also not being completely supportive of what’s being done and said right now- and in that context, saying anything in disagreement with the current movement would be fatal. Not saying that’s what happened, but it would explain his feeling like he needed to not come out and make statements.

 

I also don’t think Brees is the archetype of what should be done here. Rather he is an example of how to bow to the crowd and save face after the outrage mob gets on your case, but I suppose that breakdown is a matter of what your personal thoughts about Brees’ original comments are. 

 

 

Some fair points from you too.

 

I do disagree with what you think is Marcel's aim here, though. (Although I only know the two things he said in the OP, so if he's gone on and opened up more about his intentions, I've missed it.)

 

As I tried to say in my first post (probably not very well), I don't think Marcel was criticizing him for not having an opinion on the current culture. He gave him a chance to show he'd taken seriously the mistake he had made. You yourself say he needs to "learn from his mistakes," but his statement didn't show in any way that he has. It's really pretty much the same thing a racist would say (though the racist wouldn't mean it). I don't think Fromm is at heart a racist, but he does need to make changes and show he's doing so. He didn't. And that's what I think people reacted to about this.

 

Where did Marcel specifically say that Fromm needed to have an opinion on what's happening? Again, if he's gone on to say more and I missed it, fair enough. But in the OP he didn't say that. Only that it was not acceptable. He didn't say why he thought so and I think many of the people on here are assuming he meant something that it's not clear that he did in fact mean. To me it looks like he's responding to Fromm's boilerplate, no-meat, no visible thought shown language on this.

 

He shows no visible measure of serious thought here, zero. He didn't (necessarily) need to say that he supports the "Black Lives Matter" movement. But he did need to show that he recognized he needed to make some changes and show that he's started to do that. And he didn't. He just kept up with the "Sorry, that's not me," line. But he said it, it came from some part of him. He needed to address this much more deeply. And (this is my opinion) it doesn't necessarily have to be political. It needs to be personal for him

 

And Brees was doing far more than "bowing down to the crowd" here. He was realizing a mistake and correcting it. Brees is a terrific example of what I'm saying. He got down into the issue, studied it more and realized that the racists have made the connection with veterans and the armed forces their own little dog whistle so that they can say they're against change in cop-African American relationships without using any racist language to do so.

 

Brees has always been anti-racist. He just now figured out how his "disrespecting the flag" views look terrible when you're echoing the dog whistles that the racists are using to try to spin this. When he realized, he stopped. His comments were tone-deaf. When the feedback made it obvious that  a lot of good people, including teammates that he liked and respected, were angry at him, he went back and figured out why they were angry.

 

"Through my ongoing conversations with friends, teammates, and leaders in the black community, I realize this is not an issue about the American flag. It has never been,” he said. “We can no longer use the flag to turn people away or distract them from the real issues that face our black communities.” That's what Brees said to Trump on Instagram. Brees's always been anti-racist. He simply realized why the words he used, the dog whistle language, was not suitable for the situation.

 

Brees went deep. He showed thought. "In an attempt to talk about respect, unity, and solidarity centered around the American flag and the national anthem, I made comments that were insensitive and completely missed the mark on the issues we are facing right now as a country. They lacked awareness and any type of compassion or empathy." He's not backing down on loving the flag and the anthem. He figured out what he'd done wrong, admitted it, carefully addressed it.

 

What Brees didn't do is say: Hey, that's not me. I'm sorry. Just love people and God.

 

Brees thought about it deeply and specifically addressed what he'd done and how he'd changed. Fromm didn't. IMO that may well have been what Marcel was referring to.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Thurman#1

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

On 8/7/2020 at 10:49 PM, Mike in Horseheads said:

Why is it the wrong thread? Everything else but the kitchen sink has been in here?

 

So, you're saying that it is a typical day at TBD?     

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[4merper4mer]

18 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

IMO Marcel isn't commenting on his worldview at all.

 

I think he's saying that even having had a couple of months to specifically work on his understanding of the issues, to contact people and organizations that could have deepened his knowledge on it and to find ways of demonstrating a commitment to learning on this area, that Fromm instead addressed the whole issue with generalities. He used lots of nice language but didn't really give any specifics about what he'd done to demonstrate that he was trying to work on himself and deepen his understanding of what he'd done wrong and what he could do to improve.

 

To me, Fromm's comment was a lost opportunity. He had a chance to show growth and seriousness but instead he just continued with the mea culpa. Nothing horrible whatsoever, of course. But also nothing to show development or commitment to deep consideration. Instead, no specifics whatsoever. He'd have done a ton better to give some names and thoughts of the people he had some of those difficult conversations with.

 

Look at what Drew Brees did when he said things that drew such a backlash. He headed right into the conversation and made himself aware and involved and spent some time with people who had some expertise and involvement with the issue. That's the sort of thing Fromm could have done.

It's not fair at all to say Marcel didn't comment on his worldview.  He commented on at least part of it.  He made it clear that he feels an athlete owes the world an explanation and a penance over off hand comments made in private while that athlete was very young.  Personally, while I'm not a big fan of what Fromm typed, I don't think he owes me an explanation,. Others disagree and think he owes it.  Marcel is clearly among them and that's fine, but that is part of his worldview.

 

If a reporter from a right wing paper asked Fromm about his very same comments but from a gun control angle, received a similar response and said "unacceptable", would that reporter have shown his worldview at all?

[whatdrought]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Some fair points from you too.

 

I do disagree with what you think is Marcel's aim here, though. (Although I only know the two things he said in the OP, so if he's gone on and opened up more about his intentions, I've missed it.)

 

As I tried to say in my first post (probably not very well), I don't think Marcel was criticizing him for not having an opinion on the current culture. He gave him a chance to show he'd taken seriously the mistake he had made. You yourself say he needs to "learn from his mistakes," but his statement didn't show in any way that he has. It's really pretty much the same thing a racist would say (though the racist wouldn't mean it). I don't think Fromm is at heart a racist, but he does need to make changes and show he's doing so. He didn't. And that's what I think people reacted to about this.

 

Where did Marcel specifically say that Fromm needed to have an opinion on what's happening? Again, if he's gone on to say more and I missed it, fair enough. But in the OP he didn't say that. Only that it was not acceptable. He didn't say why he thought so and I think many of the people on here are assuming he meant something that it's not clear that he did in fact mean. To me it looks like he's responding to Fromm's boilerplate, no-meat, no visible thought shown language on this.

 

He shows no visible measure of serious thought here, zero. He didn't (necessarily) need to say that he supports the "Black Lives Matter" movement. But he did need to show that he recognized he needed to make some changes and show that he's started to do that. And he didn't. He just kept up with the "Sorry, that's not me," line. But he said it, it came from some part of him. He needed to address this much more deeply. And (this is my opinion) it doesn't necessarily have to be political. It needs to be personal for him

 

And Brees was doing far more than "bowing down to the crowd" here. He was realizing a mistake and correcting it. Brees is a terrific example of what I'm saying. He got down into the issue, studied it more and realized that the racists have made the connection with veterans and the armed forces their own little dog whistle so that they can say they're against change in cop-African American relationships without using any racist language to do so.

 

Brees has always been anti-racist. He just now figured out how his "disrespecting the flag" views look terrible when you're echoing the dog whistles that the racists are using to try to spin this. When he realized, he stopped. His comments were tone-deaf. When the feedback made it obvious that  a lot of good people, including teammates that he liked and respected, were angry at him, he went back and figured out why they were angry.

 

"Through my ongoing conversations with friends, teammates, and leaders in the black community, I realize this is not an issue about the American flag. It has never been,” he said. “We can no longer use the flag to turn people away or distract them from the real issues that face our black communities.” That's what Brees said to Trump on Instagram. Brees's always been anti-racist. He simply realized why the words he used, the dog whistle language, was not suitable for the situation.

 

Brees went deep. He showed thought. "In an attempt to talk about respect, unity, and solidarity centered around the American flag and the national anthem, I made comments that were insensitive and completely missed the mark on the issues we are facing right now as a country. They lacked awareness and any type of compassion or empathy." He's not backing down on loving the flag and the anthem. He figured out what he'd done wrong, admitted it, carefully addressed it.

 

What Brees didn't do is say: Hey, that's not me. I'm sorry. Just love people and God.

 

Brees thought about it deeply and specifically addressed what he'd done and how he'd changed. Fromm didn't. IMO that may well have been what Marcel was referring to.

I think we disagree with some of the fundamental levels to this, but I appreciate the civility.

 

I think the problem I have is Marcel’s assumption that Fromm’s personal growth must manifest in an opinion about the current events. That’s pretty clearly what’s happening as he says (paraphrase) “so based on the fact that you’re growing and learning, what do you think about what’s happening in the country right now.” 
 

When Fromm chooses not to engage that conversation, Marcel considers that unacceptable... that’s seems pretty clear.

 

My issue, and I’ve said a couple times in the thread, is that I don’t think one necessitates the other. I think Fromm can have a genuine change of heart regarding his mistakes and be growing as an individual, without having to have an opinion on current events. Furthermore, I can appreciate Fromm’s hesitance to get into that loaded question because that interview doesn’t feel like the medium to get into the minutia of the situation. It seems like a spring loaded disaster waiting to happen. 
 

Furthermore, I disagree that Fromm’s answer (though short and without a ton of explanation) is unacceptable. He doesn’t want to get political, he says as much- but he gives the rule that he intends to live by. Now, If he does going forward is another question.
 

I disagree regarding Brees, but that’s fine. I appreciate you pointing out your take on it.