Tim Prister: idiot?

[Óglaigh_na_hÉireann]

I tend to think yes.

I can't help but believe he's full of himself and....with little cause. I let my opinion known on his analysis in another thread.

I just don't think there is a point to reading his articles; he's there to fill up space.

(I'll admit that I'm still going to buy his book when it comes out, though..)

 

[Champion10]

i dont know...I have only seen a couple of his writings on rivals, so I really cant form a opinion

 

[TexasDomer]

Where's this coming from?

 

[jiggafini19]

His contributions never really stood out to me at BGI, now he's at Irish Illustrated and he's putting articles on their board daily.

I'm looking forward to reading his book that comes out next month.

 

[KMac151993]

His contributions never really stood out to me at BGI, now he's at Irish Illustrated and he's putting articles on their board daily.

I'm looking forward to reading his book that comes out next month.

I agree and am wondering how good the book is going to be.

 

[TexasDomer]

The article posted earlier this week was a pretty good one, IMO.

Objectivity is hard to come by in "fan mags." One's either a hater or a homer depending on the attitude of the reader. Blind faith is just as wrong as blind hatred.

 

[BGIF]

The article posted earlier this week was a pretty good one, IMO.

Objectivity is hard to come by in "fan mags." One's either a hater or a homer depending on the attitude of the reader. Blind faith is just as wrong as blind hatred.

Well said. In the Harold Reynolds thread one poster swears Peter Gammons is a Red Sox homer while another thinks he has hardon for the Red Sox although that might be just a Cialis side effect.

 

[jiggafini19]

Well said. In the Harold Reynolds thread one poster swears Peter Gammons is a Red Sox homer while another thinks he has hardon for the Red Sox although that might be just a Cialis side effect.

Gammons is no BoSox hater. He grew up a Red Sox fan. By hard-on, I mean he's all about them. (I assume it was me that made that comment as that term, along with my heart pumping piss, are favorites)

The child inside never dies. He was ELATED in 2004 when they won the World Series.

 

[NDAlumSon]

Blind faith is just as wrong as blind hatred.

I think you just captured the idiocy of the Muslim world right there.

 

[NDAlumSon]

Yeah, Peter Gammons is a life long BoSox lover. Doesn't everybody know that?
But he's a great analyst and knows more about baseball personnel than maybe anyone.
He really does give objective analysis and here is hoping that he recovers fully from his recent brain aneurysim and returns to Baseball Tonight in fine form.

 

[TexasDomer]

As much as he loves the Sox, PG's never shied away from speaking about boneheaded decisions they made, and I'm sure some Boston fan accused him of being a "hater" at some point.

Prister's article about the Clemson thing had a valid point: Weis was more blunt than ND tended to have been in the past, and this will rub some the wrong way. ND has been very image-conscious, and its external communications typically are more vanilla (witness any KW press conference or interview). Perhaps Weis was signalling that, when ND's and his integrity are publicly questioned, the response will be just as public. That's OK, but it WILL turn the spotlight even brighter on us for signs of hypocrisy--the media will look for any chance to "expose" this. Weis probably wouldn't want it any other way. He's saying, "we're not crooked, we won't be, and if you want to investigate us, bring it on."

Prister's saying, "Hmm, this isn't what Fr. Ted, Monk, Lou, Davieham, Corrigan, Rosenthal, Wadsworth, White, et al would have done. Wonder how this will play out." Fair question, but one Weis probably couldn't care less to hear the answer to.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Prister's article about the Clemson kid didn't have a valid point. It was an incoherent, spineless mess. I already pointed out that the whole premise of the thing didn't make sense. He says ND has been hated across the country in one breath, chides Weis for being blunt and un-PC in the next breath because it will make people hate ND, and in his third breath, says "Being PC and spineless has always served ND well" - when he said himself, earlier, that ND has always been hated, and for a long time, regardless of how PC or not PC they are. So as I said his article was an incoherent illogical mess, and spineless.

 

[TexasDomer]

That's your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.

 

[ralphwaldoemerson]

Yea but I've also been kind enough to support that opinion with arguments and examples.

 

[TexasDomer]

Yes, calling an article incoherent and spineless certainly passes for argument. Ad hominem attacks usually don't work that well.

Is ND hated? Yes
Has ND's PR machine been very careful in how it words releases? Yes
Were Weis' comments a departure from this approach? Yes
Is it possible that Weis' comments could bring more heat? Yes (though not very likely)

The thing is, it isn't inconsistent or illogical that ND can be hated while being PC. Rather, ND's vanilla approach to PR releases reflected concern that it not bring more heat on itself. Weis is saying, in essence, that he doesn't care. He will defend his approach to the last because he believes it is right, fair, and honorable, and won't let a Clemson recruit or a SC newspaper imply otherwise.

Prister's article wasn't illogical. What is illogical is your implication that to be PC and spineless equals not being hated. Weis, on that part, agrees with Prister. We'll be hated whether we are PC or not, so why not be open, honest, and willing to defend our reputation vigorously. Weis' gambit is that he'd rather be hated for that than for being PC or spineless, or because the public believes the garbage that comes from ND haters without serious challenge from the administration.