Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Response
|
Your quote of Botchford is not word for word. Review the tape. Since you are arguing semantics, you have changed the order of his words. I didn't think the line "Then he engaged in a debate with Farhan, Farhan turned around to defend himself and Joe launched into his joke in front of everyone." changed anything of his quote. I agree Farhan probably did this. It doesn't change the fact that Botchford said he had never heard a line like this, and he clearly has.
The TSN panel asked the question. They can make it about whatever issue they want to. Maybe they had a follow up if it got answered in a specific way. To me, it looks like they were trying to catch Botchford in a lie, and attack his credibility. I think that's fair. They asked him a specific question and he dodged it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Jesus tittyf*%@ Christ, this is bad argumentation! I don't give a god damn about your facts, that's the whole point.
|
I enjoy how you don't care about facts, because they don't go directly to your point. I didn't take anything out of context. If you put the Farhan sentence into the whole response, it literally changes nothing. It does not change the context one bit. I don't think the situations are vastly different, because they both involved a reporter, in Vancouver, being asked if they played the game, a joke was made and Botchford was involved (yes, he was involved in different capacities) Bad argumentation? I didn't know that "Jesus tittyf*%@ Christ" was much better. I'll use that in the future.
I did read where you identified the difference was tone. I stated you can use any tone you want, it still doesn't change it. I'm also not the only one in this thread to make the same point, which you've responded to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19
Are you intentionally being an ass?
|
I'm debating an incident. I haven't called anyone in this thread a name, accused them of trolling, told them that their response was a sideshow or they needed to make an effort to read. That's all you. I gave a logical, factual based response, from my perspective, that you didn't agree with. Others do agree with me. We see the overall issue basically the same, but we disagree about one part of it. I think Botchford stating he has never heard those types of comments is part of the overall issue. If he has heard them, why didn't he post them before? If he understood the difference between a joke and a serious point, and has heard similar jokes before, why didn't he post them before? I don't think you can leave out. I really believe it's a credibility issue. He tried to come off saying he needed to do it because if the other guys did quote it, he would be in trouble. The others didn't write it. Maybe they had been around longer (I don't know, as I don't know who was in the locker), or maybe they had better judgement and/or credibility. Be refusing to admit he did anything wrong, he is further damaging his credibility. I believe this is part of what you call "a real question to be discussed here that Botchford may or may not be on the wrong side of". I have made valid points for this, even if you don't agree with it.
My last sentence from my previous post was in agreement with you, that he shouldn't have posted it. I thought that was a very clear opinion from the vast majority in this thread, and from the general public. Because I didn't quote that part of your response I don't have reading comprehension?