Open letter to Jackie MacSullen

[PatriotsReign]

He is a waste. Don't waste your time and talent with this troll who is simply stirring up the pot on this board. The more you respond, the more he feels he's got the upper hand. I went after him last month when he came in and instigated a dialog about the same old spygate stuff. His M.O. will never change. You have better things to do than to go after this loser.

There are better debates to come with many of us who at least value rational thought and the pursuit of facts as the basis for a real argument. Save yourself for the real challenges!!!

The issue of this thread is MacMullan making horrendous comments about the Patriots & BB while writing for the newspaper whose readers LOVE the Patriots & BB. That was stupid of her and she made it clear she's wearing her negative personal issues on her sleaves.

I can guarantee 99% of Globe readers did not want to read her opinion on that issue.

 

[fnordcircle]

I can guarantee 99% of Globe readers did not want to read her opinion on that issue.

You're completely wrong here. It's trolling at it's finest. Why do people who hated Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern listen more than people who liked them? Because they're waiting to see what stupid thing they say next.

It's precisely because Jackie writes for a NE rag that she's trying to antagonize NE fans. Because everyone who gets irritated at her seems to be more anxious to read her next column and then get pissed off about it than people who would agree. This isn't some new phenomenon it's the exact same thing as trolling on a messageboard.

 

[ClevTrev]

The issue of this thread is MacMullan making horrendous comments about the Patriots & BB while writing for the newspaper whose readers LOVE the Patriots & BB. That was stupid of her and she made it clear she's wearing her negative personal issues on her sleaves.

I can guarantee 99% of Globe readers did not want to read her opinion on that issue.

Thanks, but I don't see it that way. Since you responded to me, I'll tell you directly that your original post sounds like the product of someone who's paranoid. You're going way overboard on this by blowing it out of proportion. Grow a thicker skin. And furthermore, if you get upset every time you read something that doesn't match your view, then you're in for a long and agonizing life. But, hey, that's just my view.

 

[fnordcircle]

And furthermore, if you get upset every time you read something that doesn't match your view, then you're in for a long and agonizing life. But, hey, that's just my view.

There's some great post/avatar synergy going on here.

 

[patsox23]

I don't get how some fellow Pats fans get upset when someone says something negative about Pats.

That's not the point he's making. It's the DISHONESTY of the comment she made. If the point of McMullen's article was "Ellis Hobbs gives too much of a cushion in coverage," you'd be correct. Please try to read what the poster is actually saying first.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Thanks, but I don't see it that way. Since you responded to me, I'll tell you directly that your original post sounds like the product of someone who's paranoid. You're going way overboard on this by blowing it out of proportion. Grow a thicker skin. And furthermore, if you get upset every time you read something that doesn't match your view, then you're in for a long and agonizing life. But, hey, that's just my view.

Thank you mr zen. Glad you have the wisdom & experience to give advice on life. I am grateful, fortunate and blessed for the life I've been given. But I have to admit, my positive attitude is the result of a near death experience 19 years ago at the age of 30.

Hint: commentary on this board has nothing to do with anything.

 

[ClevTrev]

But I have to admit, my positive attitude is the result of a near death experience 19 years ago at the age of 30.

If you were able to develop a positive attitude out of a potentially devastating experience, then you have my respect. My views on the MacMullen piece and the response to the piece don't change. I don't see it the way you do, and take no offense about her ideas. But, as I said, that's my view.

 

[PatriotsReign]

If you were able to develop a positive attitude out of a potentially devastating experience, then you have my respect. My views on the MacMullen piece and the response to the piece don't change. I don't see it the way you do, and take no offense about her ideas. But, as I said, that's my view.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your view on MacMullan. I don't want or deserve any accolades for what has happened in my life nor was I trying to make you feel bad. Just showing you that no one can make any accurate assumptions based upon what we read on this board.

P.S. my experience was not potentially devasting, it was devastating. But it opened many doors to things I never would have seen or known.

 

[ClevTrev]

Just showing you that no one can make any accurate assumptions based upon what we read on this board.

Thanks, that's been my mantra (oh crap, I'm reinforcing the zen tag!) from the beginning: "Don't believe everything you read," which today with the pervasiveness of blogs & message boards should be changed to "Don't believe much of what you read."

Cheers, I'm off to watch the Meltdowns vs. Defending Champs.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Thanks, that's been my mantra (oh crap, I'm reinforcing the zen tag!) from the beginning: "Don't believe everything you read," which today with the pervasiveness of blogs & message boards should be changed to "Don't believe much of what you read."

Cheers, I'm off to watch the Meltdowns vs. Defending Champs.

I'm pulling for the Chargers but not by much!

Enjoy

 

[SoCal Bong]

What is JM's email address?

Nevermind: [email protected]

 

[FrontSeven]

I know plenty of people who feel that way. Most of those people are either biased or uninformed but they still feel that way.

Well, why pander to them then?

An idiot is an idiot is an idiot.

 

[fgssand]

What is it in her life / profession that makes her feel the need to take shot after shot at BB and the Patriots??

Does she seek attention / readers / ratings??

Does she feel she is holier than thou, hence, she earned the right to play judge / jury / executioner??

I just do not understand the motivation here, it seems to me to be deeply seeded in some kind of weird "get Bill" movement within the Globe dating back to the day he was hired and called "pond scum" and other such warm welcome greetings.

 

[arrellbee]

Well, I think everybody who posted here should be able to say that they read the whole article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...08/01/12/new_tricks_for_old_underdogs/?page=1

You have to be really careful about making judgements just on somebody's excerpts from an entire piece.

Jackie MacMullen is, to my perception, pretty much a 'tell it like it is' writer. If it bothers you that she says in print 'what it is' then perhaps you are looking for a pure homerist media. I enjoy that type of media output very much - it's very heartwarming. But I must say that I also appreciate astute perspectives and observations as well.

Again - everyone really should read the entire article as linked above. But i really don't have a problem with the part of the excerpt:

"Bill Belichick's boys have been trained to never underestimate an opponent. The most impressive component of this undefeated season has been this team's unwavering concentration, particularly in light of Spygate, the omnipresent scandal that has stained an otherwise magical year.

Get used to it. Even if New England runs the table at 19-0 and handily wins the Super Bowl, this issue isn't going away. There are too many football people, including coaches, general managers, players, and fans, who believe the Patriots are cheaters. With that comes a stubborn resolve never to acknowledge the accomplishments of this franchise."

What do you find about this that isn't totally realistic about this ? And, for gosh sakes, she even calls it a magical year. I think you are reaching to call this a gratuitous negatism. To me it looks like just the unfortunate reality.

On the other hand, I have a little bit of a personal disagreement with her next paragraph:

"That's on Belichick's head. He may be a brilliant tactician, but he grossly misjudged the effect of his arrogance on his own legacy, and that of his team."

I, personally, do not find Belichick as arrogant. To me, he is best described as an ultimate pragmatist. And right behind that is an obvious outlook of 'suffer no fools'. If your thing is to want him to provide comments that can be jumped on and criticized when asked foolish or provocative questions, then you may regard him as 'arrogant' for not playing that game. Personally, I am quite pleased that there is a coach who will not be baited into stupid dialogue or interview clips that can be distorted by the media. But I certainly don't really think that can be called 'arrogant'.

Read the whole article. There are a lot of interesting observations and a lot of things that a fan will enjoy reading.

 

[ClevTrev]

Well, I think everybody who posted here should be able to say that they read the whole article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...08/01/12/new_tricks_for_old_underdogs/?page=1

You have to be really careful about making judgements just on somebody's excerpts from an entire piece.

Jackie MacMullen is, to my perception, pretty much a 'tell it like it is' writer. If it bothers you that she says in print 'what it is' then perhaps you are looking for a pure homerist media. I enjoy that type of media output very much - it's very heartwarming. But I must say that I also appreciate astute perspectives and observations as well.

Again - everyone really should read the entire article as linked above. But i really don't have a problem with the part of the excerpt:

"Bill Belichick's boys have been trained to never underestimate an opponent. The most impressive component of this undefeated season has been this team's unwavering concentration, particularly in light of Spygate, the omnipresent scandal that has stained an otherwise magical year.

Get used to it. Even if New England runs the table at 19-0 and handily wins the Super Bowl, this issue isn't going away. There are too many football people, including coaches, general managers, players, and fans, who believe the Patriots are cheaters. With that comes a stubborn resolve never to acknowledge the accomplishments of this franchise."

What do you find about this that isn't totally realistic about this ? And, for gosh sakes, she even calls it a magical year. I think you are reaching to call this a gratuitous negatism. To me it looks like just the unfortunate reality.

On the other hand, I have a little bit of a personal disagreement with her next paragraph:

"That's on Belichick's head. He may be a brilliant tactician, but he grossly misjudged the effect of his arrogance on his own legacy, and that of his team."

I, personally, do not find Belichick as arrogant. To me, he is best described as an ultimate pragmatist. And right behind that is an obvious outlook of 'suffer no fools'. If your thing is to want him to provide comments that can be jumped on and criticized when asked foolish or provocative questions, then you may regard him as 'arrogant' for not playing that game. Personally, I am quite pleased that there is a coach who will not be baited into stupid dialogue or interview clips that can be distorted by the media. But I certainly don't really think that can be called 'arrogant'.

Read the whole article. There are a lot of interesting observations and a lot of things that a fan will enjoy reading.

This is the quintessential post of the thread.

 

[kriskanos]

She hates our team and any one who defends her must as well.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Well, I think everybody who posted here should be able to say that they read the whole article.

http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...08/01/12/new_tricks_for_old_underdogs/?page=1

You have to be really careful about making judgements just on somebody's excerpts from an entire piece.

Jackie MacMullen is, to my perception, pretty much a 'tell it like it is' writer. If it bothers you that she says in print 'what it is' then perhaps you are looking for a pure homerist media. I enjoy that type of media output very much - it's very heartwarming. But I must say that I also appreciate astute perspectives and observations as well.

Again - everyone really should read the entire article as linked above. But i really don't have a problem with the part of the excerpt:

"Bill Belichick's boys have been trained to never underestimate an opponent. The most impressive component of this undefeated season has been this team's unwavering concentration, particularly in light of Spygate, the omnipresent scandal that has stained an otherwise magical year.

Get used to it. Even if New England runs the table at 19-0 and handily wins the Super Bowl, this issue isn't going away. There are too many football people, including coaches, general managers, players, and fans, who believe the Patriots are cheaters. With that comes a stubborn resolve never to acknowledge the accomplishments of this franchise."

What do you find about this that isn't totally realistic about this ? And, for gosh sakes, she even calls it a magical year. I think you are reaching to call this a gratuitous negatism. To me it looks like just the unfortunate reality.

On the other hand, I have a little bit of a personal disagreement with her next paragraph:

"That's on Belichick's head. He may be a brilliant tactician, but he grossly misjudged the effect of his arrogance on his own legacy, and that of his team."

I, personally, do not find Belichick as arrogant. To me, he is best described as an ultimate pragmatist. And right behind that is an obvious outlook of 'suffer no fools'. If your thing is to want him to provide comments that can be jumped on and criticized when asked foolish or provocative questions, then you may regard him as 'arrogant' for not playing that game. Personally, I am quite pleased that there is a coach who will not be baited into stupid dialogue or interview clips that can be distorted by the media. But I certainly don't really think that can be called 'arrogant'.

Read the whole article. There are a lot of interesting observations and a lot of things that a fan will enjoy reading.

Why would you think anyone would make any comments without reading the article? You're making assumptions that reflect an air of superiority my friend.

I can't believe you are ok with her stating "this issue will not go away" when in fact it has been steadily going away. We never hear talk of anything being tainted anymore...but here SHE is bringing it up again and NOT letting it go away....AND she writes for "US"

Her feelings are irrelevant. That is what you don't understand. No one cares about her opinion or her feelings....period

 

[PatriotsReign]

This is the quintessential post of the thread.

You forgot to say "In my opinion". Because it surely is just your opinion.

I rather think of it as the quintessential arrogance of some members...but that's just me.

Like you Clev, this person is not in a position to give advice and everything he/she says is predicated upon the assumption that no one read the entire article.

How pompous

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I get tired about people whining about writers, however I really wonder why we need football writers that hate the team and the coach?

Especially, when they deliver the best sports product these miserable wretches could hope for.

Screw her, shank, Tomase, Guregian, Borges in exile and the rest of the sour apple crowd.

Read Reiss and Gaspar and support writers that are happy to cover the team.

I hate Pollyanna cheerleaders, but c'mon, this is ridiculous.

My wife and I have a joke we always say about the fact that the local beat writers for the Patriots actually hate the team. I usually say something like: "After all, it would just be impossible to find an actual Pats fan to write lame and uninformative articles, wouldn't it? So it is perfectly understandable that the newspapers and local networks feel compelled to find Green Bay fans (Felger) or Boxing fans (Borges) or Steelers fans (Gresh) or baseball rejects (Tomase, red head, ect.) or Bigfoot (Jackie) or anybody who clearly has nothing to do with New England football to write lame and uninformative articles on the Pats. I mean it would just be too tough to find a fan to take the job, wouldn't it???????????"

 

[PatsWorldChamps]

shows why chicks, even if they are the bulldyke type, should NOT be sports reporters, unless they want to cover women's golf or soccer.