Why do you care so much about the negative reaction? Are you saying we should have either formed a positive reaction, or we should have not been affected by the statement at all? I don't see what you're trying to prove with this. Of course people are going to react negatively to a comment like this when it comes in this context.

 

If you can't see what I'm trying to say then either you didn't read my first post or you're incapable of deduction. It's pretty straightforward.

If you can't see what I'm trying to say then either you didn't read my first post or you're incapable of deduction. It's pretty straightforward.

 

Ok maybe I am incapable of deduction. What are you saying? Are you looking for sympathy for XU or for Tu?

To me it's pretty simple. The "Zip Em Up" comment wouldn't have even caused a stir had no fight taken place. Everyone would have assumed he was talking about the play on the court, just as everyone always does with the other comments Clyde mentioned ("Bury Em", "Step on Their Throat", etc.).

 

However, you can't take the context of the quote out of the equation. When I heard the comments the first time, I immediately thought he was talking about the fight. Still do. In this same context, any of the comments Clyde mentioned would've been equally criticized IMO.

I'm not arguing with you about why there was the reaction there was. We agree.

 

You're saying "I know what he really meant but because there was a fight it was wrong." Really? If there was a fight and he said "we stepped on their throats when were up 20 late" you would have had the same reaction?

 

If there wasn't a fight, if he didn't talk about gangsters, if he wasn't talking about bodybags, if he wasn't talking trash the entire game and all he said was, "we wanted to zip em up", I don't think there would be a reaction. I really don't think it would have been as bad if he wasn't talking about gangsters in connection to it. Tying gangsters and "zip em up" together is bad and deserve the reactio he got. Keep everything the same (even the fight) and he never says a word about gangsters, there probably isn't as much of a reaction either.

 

I very much agree with UKMF.

If there wasn't a fight, if he didn't talk about gangsters, if he wasn't talking about bodybags, if he wasn't talking trash the entire game and all he said was, "we wanted to zip em up", I don't think there would be a reaction. I really don't think it would have been as bad if he wasn't talking about gangsters in connection to it. Tying gangsters and "zip em up" together is bad and deserve the reactio he got. Keep everything the same (even the fight) and he never says a word about gangsters, there probably isn't as much of a reaction either.

 

I very much agree with UKMF.

 

I agree with both of you as well. That's why I'm trying to figure out what Clyde is trying to accomplish with this.

If there wasn't a fight, if he didn't talk about gangsters, if he wasn't talking about bodybags, if he wasn't talking trash the entire game and all he said was, "we wanted to zip em up", I don't think there would be a reaction. I really don't think it would have been as bad if he wasn't talking about gangsters in connection to it. Tying gangsters and "zip em up" together is bad and deserve the reactio he got. Keep everything the same (even the fight) and he never says a word about gangsters, there probably isn't as much of a reaction either.

 

I very much agree with UKMF.

 

Keep everything the same and substitute "step on their throats" for "zip em up." Same reaction?

To me it's pretty simple. The "Zip Em Up" comment wouldn't have even caused a stir had no fight taken place. Everyone would have assumed he was talking about the play on the court, just as everyone always does with the other comments Clyde mentioned ("Bury Em", "Step on Their Throat", etc.).

 

However, you can't take the context of the quote out of the equation. When I heard the comments the first time, I immediately thought he was talking about the fight. Still do. In this same context, any of the comments Clyde mentioned would've been equally criticized IMO.

 

Good response. I disagree with the "equally criticized" comment.

I don't know, probably not. It doesn't have that ring to it, and maybe because we as sports society are used to hearing the "step on their throats" comment more often.

 

Plus, I don't think gangsters and "step on their throat" has the same affect as "zip em up". Gangsters and "Zip em up" seem to draw more of a correlation to each other and comes off stronger because of it. Which is why there was a strong reaction.

Assuming we all agree that Tu didn't truly mean to "end the opponents actual breathing and have a coroner put them in a body bag and then zip said body bag" are we overlooking other expressions that have the same meaning ?

 

Is "Step on their throat" really any better? Is "bury them" any different? Is "hit em when they're down" any better?

 

I think all of those phrases, with perhaps the exception of "bury them", are rather tasteless and could be done without. Regardless, when your "opponent" refers to the sports team you are competing against, then maybe Tu's "zip 'em up" expression is a little less abhorrent.

 

HOWEVER, when that phrase is used in reference to the group of people you just had an all-out brawl with only minutes earlier, and when that phrase is following up your statement that "we gangstas over here"...then I think a suspension is in absolutely in order simply for his remarks in the press conference and his use of "zip 'em up".

To me it's pretty simple. The "Zip Em Up" comment wouldn't have even caused a stir had no fight taken place. Everyone would have assumed he was talking about the play on the court, just as everyone always does with the other comments Clyde mentioned ("Bury Em", "Step on Their Throat", etc.).

 

However, you can't take the context of the quote out of the equation. When I heard the comments the first time, I immediately thought he was talking about the fight. Still do. In this same context, any of the comments Clyde mentioned would've been equally criticized IMO.

 

^^ What he said.

I think all of those phrases, with perhaps the exception of "bury them", are rather tasteless and could be done without. Regardless, when your "opponent" refers to the sports team you are competing against, then maybe Tu's "zip 'em up" expression is a little less abhorrent.

 

HOWEVER, when that phrase is used in reference to the group of people you just had an all-out brawl with only minutes earlier, and when that phrase is following up your statement that "we gangstas over here"...then I think a suspension is in absolutely in order simply for his remarks in the press conference and his use of "zip 'em up".

 

So in your mind the "zip em up" would not have been reacted to in the same way if a player said it after a boring 20 point win?

To ge to the core of your question - no, "zip 'em up" is not any different than "step on their throat", "put them out of their misery" or any similar phrase. None of these phrases by themselves will cause an outcry of negative reaction IMO.

 

As I said above, "zip 'em up" by itself wouldn't even warrant much of a negative reaction, just like I had no negative reaction to it when I heard it because I thought he was saying "stop them from talking". It is all the other talk and action around that phrase that caused the negative reaction. If you substitute "step on their throats" for "zip 'em up", you would get the same negative reaction because of everything else that happened around that comment.

I don't know, probably not. It doesn't have that ring to it, and maybe because we as sports society are used to hearing the "step on their throats" comment more often.

 

Plus, I don't think gangsters and "step on their throat" has the same affect as "zip em up". Gangsters and "Zip em up" seem to draw more of a correlation to each other and comes off stronger because of it. Which is why there was a strong reaction.

 

You have basically proven my point. We are very reactionary. Our world accepts "step on their throat" but not "zip em up" which has the exact same meaning. Why?

To me it's pretty simple. The "Zip Em Up" comment wouldn't have even caused a stir had no fight taken place. Everyone would have assumed he was talking about the play on the court, just as everyone always does with the other comments Clyde mentioned ("Bury Em", "Step on Their Throat", etc.).

 

However, you can't take the context of the quote out of the equation. When I heard the comments the first time, I immediately thought he was talking about the fight. Still do. In this same context, any of the comments Clyde mentioned would've been equally criticized IMO.

 

Ditto. Same thing I am trying to say above. I think you said it a little better. :thumb:

To ge to the core of your question - no, "zip 'em up" is not any different than "step on their throat", "put them out of their misery" or any similar phrase. None of these phrases by themselves will cause an outcry of negative reaction IMO.

 

As I said above, "zip 'em up" by itself wouldn't even warrant much of a negative reaction, just like I had no negative reaction to it when I heard it because I thought he was saying "stop them from talking". It is all the other talk and action around that phrase that caused the negative reaction. If you substitute "step on their throats" for "zip 'em up", you would get the same negative reaction because of everything else that happened around that comment.

 

Thanks.