Of limited interest to most…
I’m enjoying the comment thread on this post at Oiler’s Nation. A brief synopsis:
- Local sports radio host posts grab-bag article covering a number of topics
- Commenter politely suggests that the part of the article regarding the waiver eligibility of several players is wrong
- Local sports radio host acts like a junior high student (complete with age-appropriate punctuation, or lack thereof) in responding to said criticism, including Arguments from Authority, ad hominems, and the ever-popular “Can’t you guys read. [sic]”
- Commenters (one of whom is a lawyer) lay a courteous, fact-based beatdown on said petulant radio host, quoting the Collective Bargaining Agreement and providing examples. Turns out they can read after all, huh? (They can spell and punctuate, too!)
Like I said, of limited interest, but an interesting example of its type.
UPDATE: It’s just gotten even better. If you close your eyes you can almost hear the pitter patter of rage spittle hitting the keyboard. Pro-tip: When you’re being criticized for being unprofessional, it is unhelpful to dredge up a non-sequitur, long-forgotten incident in which you were accused of plagiarism.
.:
June 18th, 2009 at 5:00 am
I just read the article and the comments. And you’re right on, it’s quite funny. I love the whole 7 games / 11 games argument.
But you’re wrong that it’s only of limited interest. I’m 100% sure cause I talked to Rick about it just last week.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:10 am
YOU ARE WRONG
June 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
What? I’ve got this right. Can’t you guys read.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I trust the guy who talked to the guy who should know a lot more than I trust the the guy who posts detailed proof. “Evidence” and “reasoned debate” are for pussies who don’t know to believe what they’re told by talk radio hosts.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
That was pretty awesome. I love MSM blowhards who know jack.