SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I don't wanna be that guy, but the idea of using the word cancer to describe a football player is just wrong in my eyes. And not just to the originial poster because sportswriters do it all the time. I've thought about the use of this term myself and decided that it is probably kosher. The root of the comparison is valid, in that the "cancer" eats away at an organization and can spread to otherwise team-oriented players. I'm aware that it's a cliche at this point, but it really is a very good metaphor. Additionally, since the metaphor references the cancer itself and does not attempt to conjure images of a cancer PATIENT, I do not believe it is a damaging turn of phrase. On top of everything, if this was actually bothersome to cancer patients or their families I believe that enough people would have come forward at this point and suggested that media outlets cease to use the term. However, the fact that the term remains an oft-used cliche means to me that these people are for the most part un-offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lets_go_bills Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 I've calmed down about the TO signing and agree that there isn't much downside with the 1 year contract, but don't make up positives about him. TO cares about one thing...HIMSELF! As long as the balls are being thrown his way, he is fine. As soon as he determines that he is not getting his quota, he gets pissed. Yeah, TO thinks the NFL revolves around him, but actually it's the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts