You sure didn't hesitate with that one. And if you think my statement about a single person is the same as a sweeping generalization of millions, then you have pretty poor logic.

 

For someone so set on logic your post didn't live up to your own standards. You've insinuated that Jim's posts are wrong or are inaccurate because of who he is, which is a fallacious use of logic.

Fair enough. While I don't necessarily think that the question change would have made that big a difference, maybe it would've, and with that in mind, it perhaps should've been left alone. Of course, we still don't know whose choice it was to change things -- Tipton's or somebody at a higher pay grade than him.

 

And I (nor does anyone else) know for sure how that whole scene went down. Maybe he asked the question both ways.

 

Yeah. I'd love to know how that all went down as far as whose call it was to make it 'died of multiple gunshot wounds'. I'd say we'll never know. Oh well. Gilchrist will probably only be there a year. They can interview him in April.

Your statement is a sweeping generalization of journalists. Jim just isn't so ham-fisted and inflamatory as to just parody your post word for word, but if he did:

 

it would be the exact same thing as what he said.

 

By setting your construction up as "Jim is a journalist, therefore he is like this," that's a sweeping generalization of any journalist. There's really no way around that.

 

Absolutely not. My statement was based on Jim's posting history on this board. Not the simple fact that he's a journalist. He posts in favor of the media 100% of the time, and against UK 90% of the time.

 

Nowhere did I say ANYTHING about ANY journalist other than Jim. My reference to his being a journalist was simply to provide more insight to the reader. He should appreciate that, no?

UK basketball does need neutral observers, because if they weren't there, how would anybody know about crooked stuff like the Emery package? It certainly wouldn't be fanboy sites like Matt Jones' or Wireman's.

 

But given past history, you guys clearly would rather shoot the messenger.

 

That's all well and good. The Emery package happened over 20 years ago and Tipton has been trying to find another blockbuster ever since. The Patterson lie, and that's exactly what is was, is a recent example. He is a desperate dinosaur that has to resort to shock to gain interest why guys like Matt Jones dominates him in followers and influence. Sad world he lives in.

Absolutely not. My statement was based on Jim's posting history on this board. Not the simple fact that he's a journalist. He posts in favor of the media 100% of the time, and against UK 90% of the time.

 

Nowhere did I say ANYTHING about ANY journalist other than Jim. My reference to his being a journalist was simply to provide more insight to the reader. He should appreciate that, no?

 

You, like most other UK blinder homers, read awful deep into my posts. I simply try to provide insight as to why things might happen, based on my experience. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone; just trying to give others insight. There are an awful lot of journalists out there who make the profession look really bad. Kind of like the fact there are an awful lot of fans who make entire fan bases look really bad.

That's all well and good. The Emery package happened over 20 years ago and Tipton has been trying to find another blockbuster ever since. The Patterson lie, and that's exactly what is was, is a recent example. He is a desperate dinosaur that has to resort to shock to gain interest why guys like Matt Jones dominates him in followers and influence. Sad world he lives in.

I doubt Jerry Tipton loses much sleep at night over what Matt Jones does. Their jobs are entirely different.

Regardless of intentions, Jim's track record shows he always takes up against UK. With that in mind, it's hard for many who are familiar with his posting history to take anything he has to say regarding UK (regardless of intentions) as anything other than biased and an attack. (Just like there are quite a few on here who will defend UK no matter).

 

I tend to think the question should be presented as asked. Do I really feel it would've affected MGK's answer? Not really, however something had to have been said, most likely by him, to cause any kind of issue here. I will agree with Jim that we have no idea who's call it was to reword the question, however given Tipton's track record, it's entirely plausible that it was him, not the editor.

I don't think that Gilchrist necessarily was the one that raised the issue- the UK athletic department has been on an anti-media tear for some time. Seems to play well with their fans.

You, like most other UK blinder homers, read awful deep into my posts. I simply try to provide insight as to why things might happen, based on my experience. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone; just trying to give others insight. There are an awful lot of journalists out there who make the profession look really bad. Kind of like the fact there are an awful lot of fans who make entire fan bases look really bad.

 

Attacking the poster, and not the post? I'm pretty sure you'd rip any UK fan that started a post that way. Keep it up.

I don't think that Gilchrist necessarily was the one that raised the issue- the UK athletic department has been on an anti-media tear for some time. Seems to play well with their fans.

Based upon what? Him not releasing a personal statement? Your theory is the Gilchrist does not care and the UK athletic department orchestrated from there? Not saying you are wrong, just think you are grasping. Now once the issue was raised, UK may be pounding away.

 

I do not know the kid other than what I have read about his hoop ability and now that his dad was gunned down. Maybe he was embarrassed by it and told his coach? Something tells me with twitter, facebook, etc. kids are taught to report things to whomever before responding publicly.

Based upon what? Him not releasing a personal statement? Your theory is the Gilchrist does not care and the UK athletic department orchestrated from there? Not saying you are wrong, just think you are grasping.

 

I do not know the kid other than what I have read about his hoop ability and now that his dad was gunned down. Maybe he was embarrassed by it and told his coach? Something tells me with twitter, facebook, etc. kids are taught to report things to whomever before responding publicly.

I'm grasping at nothing. I said it wasn't NECESSARILY Gilchrist who said anything. What additional information do you have that says it was Gilchrist for sure? Because that's what would be required for what I said to be wrong.

I think the H-L viewed it as an oddly worded question and changed it to provide clarity. It's not like they changed the answer. It was a poorly-worded question to begin with.

 

I agree about Peevy waging war with the media. It's funny how UK fans rail on Jurich and his hold over the C-J but then support Peevy when a media outlet does something UK doesn't like.

 

I'm not a newspaper apologist. You won't be holding one to read in 10 years. They will all be online.

 

I think it's an overreaction on both sides -- UK and the H-L. And it's obviously another log in the conspiracy against UK fire that Matt Jones likes to stoke. He's no dummy. He knows what gets readers to his site.

^But how are you so sure that his answer wouldn't have changed had the question been asked as they meant to print it?

I don't. It just looked like to me they took out the part about losing a father at age 2. Are we talking about Tipton or Gilchrist? By taking that out, there was no question who it was about then.

I don't. It just looked like to me they took out the part about losing a father at age 2. Are we talking about Tipton or Gilchrist? By taking that out, there was no question who it was about then.

 

You've got to be kidding. That's all they changed? How do you get that?

 

This is how the question was originally worded:

 

Question: "My father died when I was 2 years old. So that grabbed my attention. How did that affect you?"

 

This is how it appeared in the H-L:

 

Question: Your father died of multiple gunshot wounds when you were 2 years old. How did that affect you?

 

You didn't see adding the part about "multiple gunshot wounds" as a change?