Terrelle Pryor, social commentator
Thought you guys might get a kick out of this:
Just another reason I would like to see Mike Martin and Big Will turn Terelle into their BIOTCH!
Just the thought of this guy winning a Heisman makes me puke in my mouth.
Winning the Heisman is mostly a stat game. For QB's, it means yardage, TDs and to some extent completion percentage. For RBs, it means yardage, 100+ yard games and yards per carry. It also means not having a bad day against the wrong opponent, causing your team to lose. Tebow overcame the heavy focus on yardage because he was the first QB to ever have both 20 passing and 20 rushing TDs in the same season.
TP will not come close to 20 rushing TDs because OSU has at least two decent running backs (Florida had none when Tebow did it). TP might not hit 20 passing either. He also won't be blowing up the stat list in yardage.
TP has had one decent game stat-wise in his first two years (and a number of bad ones). So long as Tressel can win by playing conservatively on offense, he will. And that will not lead to enough stats for TP to beat out any number of other QBs (Locker, Luck, Brantley, Crist, Gilbert, Jones, Collaros) not to mention all the RBs. His name will be on everyone's short list at the beginning of the season, but he will fade just like last year.
Pryor should be banging hotter chicks than that...
He *did* have the opportunity to come to Ann Arbor...just sayin.
Dose hos dat sleep aroun are mos definittly biotches, but Terrelle be a super king kamehameha biotch.
I mean, we know he doesn't have the best judgment about, well.... anything:
we can look forward to his pop culture commentary on Marcellus Wallace's appearance.
I see he's come a long way from those research papers on the topic of research.
Stuff like this is why I am not buying into the conventional "wisdom" that says "Terelle Pryor will win the Heisman on the way to leading OSU to the National Championship."
Pryor is definitely in the running to win the "Million-dollar Talent/Ten-cent Head" award, though. I wonder if he sees Ben Rothlisberger as a role model?
What, Tater?
Calling him a coke-head on other venues isn't enough, you're going to fucking suggest he's a RAPIST because he has his fucking arm around a girl? Even from you, I don't expect that level of ass-ish-ness.
Quintessential Tater right there.
Big Ben:
Terrelle:
Looks pretty similar to me. Looks like they both like to hang around bars and put their arms around skeezers. I don't see any implication that TP is a rapist. Are your panties always twisted this tightly?
You don't see how comparing him to a man who has very publicly picked up 3 sexual assault charges in two years is "suggesting he's a rapist"?
Welcome to conversations with the galactically stupid.
It is possible that Tater was simply comparing them with regard to their talent/judgment disparities. I guess I was simply reading his comment as saying that they both are a waste of massive talent, rather than that they would be guilty of the same indiscretions.
don't see it all. From now on I'll defer to you on what is and is not okay to make fun of.
Clearly, you should, because you wouldn't know "logic" if it slapped you across the face.
There's no need to launch personal attacks, is there? We can't just disagree on the tone of tater's post? Anyway, I know you're never wrong, that's why I said I'll just defer to you in all matters of what is acceptable message board banter.
No, we are in agreement. You should defer to me.
including when you voice contrarian opinions. But this time you're out of line.
where Tater has supposedly called Pryor a cokehead.
However, I think it was clear that in this specific case, he was comparing Pryor to Roethlisberger based on the big discrepancy between his talent and his intelligence/common sense.
So, I would agree with the fella who suggested that you relax.
Tater has:
a) Written that Tom Izzo condoned an EL drug ring run by Zach Randolph
b) Written that Pryor plays high on cocaine
c) Used anti-semetic slurs to describe a free press writer
He is commenting on a picture of an intoxicated Pryor and an intoxicated girl, and suggests he "may be like Ben Roethlisberger". His track-record justified that one should should assume the worst.
chitownblue2 has:
1) Falsely accussed maizenbluenc of being a racist for opposing a situation whereby European-American children, who had earned the right to play skill positions in Pop Warner football by virtue of their performance on the practice field, were denied the opportunity to play the skill positions because of their ethnic identity.
2) Falsely accused Tater of being anti-semetic for making a play on an unethical Jewish writer's name, despite the fact that this reporter unjustly damaged the University of Michigan and its football program.
3) Falsely accused virtually everyone who disagrees with him of stupidity.
Let's examine these accusations:
1) Racism involves making judgements about people based on their ethnic identity. If white kids are being so judged, they are the victims of racism. Opposing that is to oppose racism. Opposing such opposition is to support racism. That is racist and because the criticism implies racism is wrong, it is also hypocritical.
2) Unfortunately, false accusations of anti-semtitism have become all too common. Making a play on an individual's name to insult that individual does not reflect on an entire ethnic group. It reflects on the individual. What would chitownblue2 have Tater do? Walk on eggshells so as to not insult Michael Rosenberg because Rosenberg is Jewish?
3) I have found that most people who feel a need to call other people stupid are (justifiably) insecure about their own intelligence.
What can we draw from this?
Well I can't tell if chitownblue2 is African-American, Jewish, both or neither. But I can tell that chitownblue2 is prejudiced. And hypocritcal. And self-righteous. And not nearly as smart as he would have people believe.
2) Falsely accused Tater of being anti-semetic for making a play on an unethical Jewish writer's name, despite the fact that this reporter unjustly damaged the University of Michigan and its football program.
So the term "shyster" becomes less offensive when it refers to a Jew you disagree with? And how exactly did this man "damage" the UM program? Seems UM did as much itself by imposing sanctions on the program.
chitownblue2 referenced Tater's use of the word "Rosenpuke" as the basis for calling Tater anti-semetic.
And if you don't know how Michael Rosenberg damaged the Michigan program, you must have been asleep for the last 11 months.
Tater consistently referred/refers to the duo as Michael Rosenpuke and Mark Shyster.
You're just lying, or haven't comprehended what I've complained about. I have NEVER referenced his insulting Rosenberg as being anti-semetic. I think it's juvenile, but not anti-semetic. It has ALWAYS been about the use of the term "Shyster".
I'm not lying, so that only leaves not comprehending. I made a post in response to your "I want to be clear" post. . Perhaps you would care to respond to that.
If you're defending Tater, you should probably just shoot yourself in the head right now.
He's the worst poster on this site by a country fucking mile.
but rather, disagreeing with chitown's over-the-top response to Tater's post and just about everyone else's post on this thread. I don't know of Tater's reputation as a poster.
It simply came across that chitown's response wasn't only attacking Tater, but anyone else who got the slightest bit of enjoyment out of the posted link (as he essentially admitted to later).
There is a difference between defending Tater's supposed checkered posting past and attacking chitown's comments on this thread.
I want to be clear: I never accused him of using anti-semitic slurs because of "Rosenpuke". While the terms violates my sense of humor, it is inoffensive. My complaint is, and has always been about "shyster". It's a term I feel should not be used.
this was in a post awhile back. It was in the same post that you accused maisenbluenc of racism. Perhaps you can remember the topic and we can look it up. As I recall you specifically mentioned "Rosenpuke". I am willing to stand corrected. I don't recall "shyster".
I would agree that that is a term that should not be used. It is a classic slur.
However, I doubt that Tater was trying to slur all Jewish people by using the term. I suspect that Tater was simply trying to badmouth Snyder. If so, it was more stupid than anti-semitic. But, perhaps Tater can chime in and clear it up. If Tater did choose this slur, and I'll take your word for it, it was a poor choice for an insulting play on Snyder's name. An apology may be in order.
But what about maisenbluenc?
I remember the maizenbluenc comment you're talking about, but not enough of the details of what he or I said in order to honestly say whether I was being a dick (possible) or whether I'd stand by it now.
Further, I certainly can't remember ever being legitimately offended by "Rosenpuke" - certainly not enough to seriously accuse someone of anti-semitism. As I said - it offends my sense of humor and maturity more than my morality.
The first time Tater used the term "Shyster", I believe my written response was "I doubt you are genuinely anti-semitic, but you should be careful about using the term" (I'm paraphrasing). Numerous others took offense as well. Tater didn't respond, but has continued to repeatedly use the term. This suggests he's either never looked back at responses to his posts, or he's remorseless. I think the latter is more likely.
I will say this, if I said something like "mazenbluenc is a racist" that would be a stupid, ill-advised remark, as making such blanket statement based on one comment is inappropriate, and excessive. So if I did that, I apologize. If I suggested that his comment came off prejudiced, or what-have-you, then that may be something I'd support upon re-reading the thread.
Your comment was (approximately) "minus 1 for barely concealed racism".
However, maisenbluenc's comment was in objection to what maisenbluenc considered to be racism. Even if you disagreed that what maisenbluenc was describing was racist, maisenbluenc was not making a racist post (IMHO).
I won't dismiss out of hand the idea that I was wrong. I can't find his post (I apparently didn't neg it, so without that little piece of history, I have to click on every thread he posted), so I won't neccesarily say I WAS wrong. So...maybe? I don't know what to say. I can't find it on a google search of "chitownblue and racism"...we'll have to let it drop.
you used "anti-semitically" with reference to "Shyster", if you concede that you complained about "Rosenpuke" in the same sentence:
"The man who coins the phrase "Rosenpuke", vaguely anti-semitically refers to Snyder as "Shyster", and is physically incapable of typing "OSU" or MSU" without inserting a "$" into the acronym has accused me of ad hominem attacks. The man who takes new of Zack Randolph's arrest and implies that he fuels an East Lansing drug running ring, and the man who has written that Terrelle Pryor "plays high" is accusing me of vitriol. You, my "friend" are the height of hypocrisy.
You bring anti-semetic slurs to mgoblog."
I've absolutely criticized the use of "Rosenpuke:". What I haven't done is reference anti-semitism or religion while doing it - I think it's juvenlie and stupid. My point was that using the name is an ad hominem attack.
of course it's an ad hominem attack. Rosenberg did a bunch of stuff Tater doesn't like and he (Tater) is letting him (Rosenberg) have it.
Btw, I have only negged one of your comments. Unlike some, I actually like to discuss topics others consider "verboten".
Also, would you explain how a copy and paste of a previous post for informational purposes gets negged?
I have negged 1 post on this entire thread - Tater's.
"Don't get me started on race. In my view there would be more Caucasian students in football if there weren't discriminated against at a young age.
I see this every year in the Pop Warner pre-season. The coaching staff will hold sprints, etc. and the African American kids will get the nod for the skill positions even when they were clearly beat. When the A team gets selected, guess how many African Americans end up on the B team? (a token one or two to play tailback)
So in my view there wouldn't be as much of a need for black head coaches if more Caucasian kids who clearly show potential were allowed to play the "glory" positions early enough that they didn't move on to baseball, soccer, lacrosse or swimming.
There aren't enough Sam McGuffies in this world, and even poor Sam was thrown to the wolves when he should have been given a redshirt year to bulk up and get an O line in front of him.
Sorry - down off my soap box ...."
Your response:
Um...
negged for barely cloaked racism."
I'll concede that I was maybe a bit too hasty. If everything maizenbluenc says is 100% accurate, I'm wrong.
My comment was spawned from the overall vibe of "But my kid is so good and they won't let him play!". To me, the phenomenon he described (coaches playing worse kids due to skin color) seemed implausible - he essentially said that the reason why NCAA football was predominantly black was because of, essentially, reverse-racist coaches. Honestly, to me, that doesn't seem right. So - maybe I was too trite. I don't feel like I was out of line. You can disagree.
"Reverse" racism certainly does exist and if what maisenbluenc says here is 100% accurate, it exists here. But, the question remains: "Is what maisenbluenc says accurate?".
I would like to see maisenblue's commentary fleshed out with specific examples, coaches comments, etc.
But, I do think you were too quick to conclude it was racist.
But look, back to the topic at hand:
Tater linked Pryor's behavior to Ben Roethlisberger's. What wasn't explicit is what aspect of Roethlisberger's behavior. Did he mean "Roethlisberger generally makes bade decisions" (like helmetless motorcycle riding)? Maybe.
But we also know that Roethlisberger is accused of drunkenly raping a drunk girl in a bar. We also know that this is the 2nd or 3rd such accusation, and that this is extremely well-publicized.
We ALSO know that Tater made the comparison in the context of a photograph of a probably-intoxicated Pryor posing with a probably-intoxicated girl at a bar.
If Tater was suggesting that appearing, drunk, in photos, is stupid, I can think of hundreds of atheletes he could have linked Pryor to who have not repeatedly been accused of rape - like David Wright, or Kyle Orton.
Given Tater's history of Pryor commentary (pun intended), including saying things like "he plays high on cocaine", I don't think it's utterly unreasonable to assume which aspect of Roethlisberger's misbehavior he's referencing.
"Pryor is definitely in the running to win the "Million-dollar Talent/Ten-cent Head" award, though. I wonder if he sees Ben Rothlisberger as a role model?"
Certainly you would agree that Roethlisberger's conduct qualifies as a "Ten-cent Head"
Pryor has seemed like a "Ten-cent Head" kind of a guy, too.
I submit that even given the animosity between you and Tater, that it is unreasonable to make such an assumption. For Tater to suggest that Pryor would do things that stupid without a basis for the acusation would be way over the top. If that is what Tater means, let him say it, don't assume it.
I don't think inference should be strictly verboten. Tater's track-record leads me to a specific conclusion. He chose to reference an athelete whose record of having "a ten cent head" largely revolves around several alleged rapes. Most of which occured in the precise setting that Pryor's picture was taken. I don't feel that Roethlisberger was a poorly-behaving athelete chosen at random. Why not Terrell Owens?
I think is that you want to assume the worst about Tater and are rationalizing that desire.
You effectively accused me of racism. You may have said something to the effect of "someone sounds racist", but I certainly took it as a direct accusation. (FWIW, the point I was attempting to make was around reverse racism in football, starting very early.)
Frankly, some of the comments you make are enlightening, or excellent counterpoints, but you come across as a self righteous ass at times: particularly when you jump to conclusions about something someone you don't know said.
When Tater made his comment above, it didn't even occur to me that he was saying Pryor is a rapist or sexually assaults women. While I don't use the term, I for one didn't know shyster is insulting in the way you describe. In fact most people I know who use the term are Jewish. Calling Rosenberg Rosenpuke is hardly anti-Semitic, it is just like calling me maizenbluepuke. Yes it is meant to be derogatory, but hey, if you half report and in the process over-sensationalize a story, you are going to get angry people making derogatory remarks about you.
I don't know if Tater is anti-Semitic, or calling Pryor a rapist, or not. But since I don't know him, I might let him know about shyster without accusing him of be anti-Semitic, point out the sensitivity out there around Roethlisberger, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Also for the record, I wasn't talking about my kid.
I apologize for being as cavalier with the term as I was. I don't think my thought-process was terribly unreasonable, but that my expression of it:
a) didn't really say what it was
b) was overly reductive.
So, I'm sorry for that.
In terms of your last point - I don't know (and nobody aside from Tater knows) what precisely he means by his repeated use of "Shyster" or his invocation of Roethlisberger here. I do know that Tater has been asked, repeatedly, by people other than myself to stop using the term "Shyster", and hasn't. We can agree or disagree on how hateful the term is, but common courtesy would suggest that, if you're saying something that a number of people find offensive, you stop. He's chosen not to.
That's one reason why he no longer gets the "benefit of the doubt" from me. Another is his repeated use of unfounded terrible things to say about Pryor (he's paid, he's on drugs) etc. This would be a continuance of that behavior. Tater has repeatedly pushed unfounded, patently ridiculous rumors or theories about Pryor's character. For that reason, no - he does not get my benefit of the doubt here. Would you give Danny cean the Benefit of the Doubt in your jewelry store?
And look - I oppose more here than Tater's post.
This is National Enquirer-grade nonsense. Pryor seems like a somewhat unintelligent kid behaving in a way many kids his age behave. He got his picture taken with a girl. He's 21, and got photographed intoxicated. He posted an unintelligent but ultimately inoffensive "comedy bit" on Facebook. None of this is remarkable, or noteworthy, and it has nothing to do about sports, which, I thought, is why we're at this site. This is part of the same journalism that cares more about Amare Stoudemire's mother's police record than the fact he's playing in the Western Conferene Finals, or Tom Brady's illegitimate child more than his performance on the field. Why are these things public consumption? Especially for an amateur athelete?
Now see, your last point is the one I completely agree with.
(and I agree, Tater should stop using the term.)
...now we can hug this out, MGoBlog style.