Ken's not going to like this
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Support Sharon Angle
Next: Hey democrats
From: Moderate on 15 Jul 2010 10:24 "Vandar" <vandar69(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MZC%n.14058$Bh2.5134(a)newsfe04.iad... > kenpitts wrote: >> On Jul 14, 5:22 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: >> >>>That is, unless he reverses his position and comes out in favor of >>>freedom of speech. >>> >>>http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-indecency-20100714,0,599591... >>> >>>Randy >> >> >> Don't know why you would misrepresent my positions. I am a staunch >> defender of the Bill of Rights. >> >> My position on Tiger and his inappropriate outbursts has always been >> that (for the good of the game) he should be able to edit himself. You >> would never see this stuff from the great champions of the past like >> Jack Nicklaus, Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson. > > Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot > either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key > moment in a round. I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone pointed at them.
From: Moderate on 15 Jul 2010 10:25 "R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in message news:2010071509202212389-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom... > On 2010-07-15 08:15:33 -0400, Vandar said: > >> kenpitts wrote: >>> On Jul 14, 5:22 pm, "R&B" <none_of_your_busin...(a)all.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That is, unless he reverses his position and comes out in favor of >>>> freedom of speech. >>>> >>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fcc-indecency-20100714,0,599591... >>>> >>>> Randy >>> >>> >>> Don't know why you would misrepresent my positions. I am a staunch >>> defender of the Bill of Rights. >>> >>> My position on Tiger and his inappropriate outbursts has always been >>> that (for the good of the game) he should be able to edit himself. You >>> would never see this stuff from the great champions of the past like >>> Jack Nicklaus, Gene Sarazen, Byron Nelson. >> >> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot >> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key >> moment in a round. > > Although we do have a pretty good idea, based on all accounts, of the > colorful language used by one Bobby Jones, who was a known hot-head until > the final couple of years of his golfing career. > > Of course today he's viewed -- and justifiably so -- as one of the game's > greatest ambassadors of all time. > > Randy At least Tiger doesn't have to worry about being a great ambassador for the sport.
From: Howard Brazee on 15 Jul 2010 15:30 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: >> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot >> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key >> moment in a round. > >I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone >pointed at them. The question to ask people who object to such language: Do they object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that language is broadcast? If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. It's still a sin. But how many people object when their playing companions drop an f-bomb? Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when they are the celebrities that they like)? If someone you don't like uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like them. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Moderate on 15 Jul 2010 15:43 "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:t5ou36tsuou44p1373aek5ecsslbt5hai3(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:24:13 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > wrote: > >>> Those guys didn't have microphones pointed at them during every shot >>> either. We have no idea what they said after an errant shot at a key >>> moment in a round. >> >>I think that is the point. Today's players know there is a microphone >>pointed at them. > > The question to ask people who object to such language: Do they > object that the stars use that language, or do they object that that > language is broadcast? > > If the language itself is some kind of sin or something, then it > doesn't matter whether the microphone is there. It's still a sin. > But how many people object when their playing companions drop an > f-bomb? Or reading about other celebrities doing it (at least when > they are the celebrities that they like)? If someone you don't like > uses that kind of language, it's an excuse to continue to not like > them. I don't care what people do in private conversations, but only a scatological person would think live television is an appropriate venue for this type of behavior.
From: Moderate on 15 Jul 2010 16:03
"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:ifpu369m5v04r18t1n3o0nke43autai8rj(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 14:43:39 -0500, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> > wrote: > >>I don't care what people do in private conversations, but only a >>scatological person would think live television is an appropriate venue >>for >>this type of behavior. > > I'm curious. Why? If you think it is appropriate we simply have a difference of opinion. |