FARINELLA: Character is taking a back seat

Read my sig and try to tell me I don't buy into the laundry business. I think he's spot on with that, but his article teems with poorly constructed comparisons. Smoking weed and throwing a bag of chips in someone's face are comparable to multiple sexual assaults? Really? And just so I don't come across as a homer, I don't condone what Cunningham did, but I can tell you I would rather be the victim of Frito's to the face than of sexual assault or rape.

And what about the laundry argument doesn't apply to the rancor with which other fans have distorted the advantage the tapes could possibly have in a game? I'm inclined to say it was like numbering blank pages in a book, but that is only my laundry-tinted homer side (I believe it's the right) taking control again.

Ugh, who cares. I've never criticized a player for smoking weed it shouldn't even be illegal, but thats opening up a whole 'nother can of worms.

If pointing out double standards in order to alienate yourself from the fanbase that butters your bread is fine than all the other sports writers in the country would do it as well, but somehow they mostly seem to know that pissing on the fans, including the homers, is a very inappropriate activity.

In most parts of the country sports writers have a bit of homer in them. Meaning they actually care about the team that they write about. In Boston, it is just a bunch of cold blooded snakes who only wish to undermine the team's success and anger the fans because somehow that advances their own twisted agenda. These journalists are looking for name recognition at any cost, through any stunt, no matter how badly it hurts the Pats organization. Criticizing the fans simply reminds us that they ain't on our side.

The real story here is that Breer is a hack who got a story wrong (multiple test failures) and yet stuck to the fake claims out of stubborness and laziness in the face of the actual details. Then this other hack artist Farinella wants us to take Breer seriously so Farinella throws fans under the short bus. And at the end of the day we are talking about a player who never got suspended from a game anyway and these reporters are expecting us to have a nervous breakdown over character issues?

Farinella wants to draw a line in the sand against fans over this issue?

Deus Irae said:

Changing the object of your attack from the writer to me doesn't change the underlying truth of the article, it merely reinforces it.

Click to expand...

Changing the object of your attack from the article to other posters doesn't change the underlying truth of his post, it merely reinforces it.

What I learned today:

Lousy character consists of inhaling the smoke of a burning plant given by mother nature, giving a fake name, wiping a person's spit back in his face, encountering a robber and throwing paper cups... and especially in your "immature" young adult years.

So if Farinella is not perfect, then he's a hypocritical moron. What a worthless piece of trash article. Even people of the highest possible character have made mistakes, acted out of character and committed crimes. Attacking the character of young college students thrust under a microscope, of which you personally never had to go through, is IMO a much larger character flaw than any of the acts he has looked down on.


As for the idiotic straw man crap of "if Maroney was a Jet" or "if the Jets drafted Hernandez" crap, seriously grow up people. Making these stupid statements of what you "know" would happen in an alternate reality based upon your perception of possibly similar circumstances is foolish. Whether or not there is truth or merit to that alternate reality it makes little sense to argue it or jump up on your soap box to attack or discredit other people based on some created fantasy universe where your "facts" can't be disputed, since said alternate reality exists only in your mind.

emoney_33 said:

What I learned today:

Lousy character consists of inhaling the smoke of a burning plant given by mother nature, giving a fake name, wiping a person's spit back in his face, encountering a robber and throwing paper cups... and especially in your "immature" young adult years.

So if Farinella is not perfect, then he's a hypocritical moron. What a worthless piece of trash article. Even people of the highest possible character have made mistakes, acted out of character and committed crimes. Attacking the character of young college students thrust under a microscope, of which you personally never had to go through, is IMO a much larger character flaw than any of the acts he has looked down on.


As for the idiotic straw man crap of "if Maroney was a Jet" or "if the Jets drafted Hernandez" crap, seriously grow up people. Making these stupid statements of what you "know" would happen in an alternate reality based upon your perception of possibly similar circumstances is foolish. Whether or not there is truth or merit to that alternate reality it makes little sense to argue it or jump up on your soap box to attack or discredit other people based on some created fantasy universe where your "facts" can't be disputed, since said alternate reality exists only in your mind.

Click to expand...

Pretty spot-on, emoney. Personally, I'm willing to give a waiver to these guys. While marijuana is a controlled substance, it isn't really indicative of a character issue. If this is true, then I have had character issues out the wazoo. If this is true, then Kevin Faulk (one of the cleanest guys in the NFL) has character issues. The only thing, IMO, that revolves around weed that should constitute a character issue is the sale of it by professional athletes, such as Willie Andrews. THAT'S a character issue. I'm willing to dismiss Cunningham's offense because, outside of the fact that the charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence (which tells me that Cunningham might have actually paid for the chips), he was extremely young at the time. People do stupid things in their youth, which I learned the hard way as I'm sure many here have. I also think what Spikes did was awesome. Anybody that has played football in their lives knows what goes on underneath those piles and away from the ref's eyes. Spikes got spit on and got some payback. That's nothing that anybody in the NFL hasn't done in their lives. As for Deaderick, he's the only guy that might constitute a character issue but, again, he was extremely young at the time. If the only issue that you can think of since then is the fact that he got shot but a robber, but still played that weekend, then your article does not have much substance behind it. Have we taken guys with character issues before? Absolutely. I named one of them in this post. However, this class (Hernandez especially) should not be thrown under the bus for what he did. Call me if it happens when he's in a Patriot uniform. :yawn2:

emoney_33 said:

What I learned today:

Lousy character consists of inhaling the smoke of a burning plant given by mother nature, giving a fake name, wiping a person's spit back in his face, encountering a robber and throwing paper cups... and especially in your "immature" young adult years.

So if Farinella is not perfect, then he's a hypocritical moron.

Click to expand...

Once again, you are evaluating a reporter who has been on a beat for 33 years, makes 19k per year and is writing for a local paper with an 8,000 person readership.

You expected top-flight analysis? Someone with that type of career trajectory is applauded by his friends and family if he can learn to tie his own shoes before reaching social security age.

KontradictioN said:

While marijuana is a controlled substance, it isn't really indicative of a character issue.

The only thing, IMO, that revolves around weed that should constitute a character issue is the sale of it by professional athletes, such as Willie Andrews. THAT'S a character issue.

Click to expand...

I'm missing the logic that says there is nothing wrong with using it, but a terrible thing to sell it to the person who uses it.

shmessy said:

Once again, you are evaluating a reporter who has been on a beat for 33 years, makes 19k per year and is writing for a local paper with an 8,000 person readership.

You expected top-flight analysis? Someone with that type of career trajectory is applauded by his friends and family if he can learn to tie his own shoes before reaching social security age.

Click to expand...

If you put your name to it, you own it.

not that i think smokeing weed is a good thing but Kevin Faulk, got caught more this once with weed in he's car and he is one of the biggest leaders on the team.

spacecrime said:

I'm missing the logic that says there is nothing wrong with using it, but a terrible thing to sell it to the person who uses it.

Click to expand...

It's a recreational drug which is a misdomeanor charge if you're caught with only an amount that you're using. It's not worse than being caught with an open container. Selling it in bulk (which is what Andrews was doing if I can remember correctly) is a felony. There is a sharp contrast between the two. On top of that, these guys make millions of dollars. Selling a controlled substance in bulk when you're making a good chunk of change in your regular (legal) career is usually grounds for you to question that person's intelligence, whick IS a character flaw. Any further questions?