Minihane On Edelman: "Essentially Brain-Dead"

[mosslost]

That's an interesting take.

However, you do realize that that Robbins dude may very well be reading patsfans.com and laughing about the fact other posters have to suffer through your posting vs obtaining true intellectual insight available by other means?

If you really want to limit the number of asshats clouding the current condition........your first contribution should be self restraint.

Next, email/text/snapface or instabook your success to Minihane. Start the trend and watch it blossom into a movement.

>>
If you really want to limit the number of asshats clouding the current condition........your first contribution should be self restraint.

I will admit fully that this comment made me laugh hard.. good job.

 

[Clonamery]

I'm not sure. The $6000 is for two tickets and is the max price. You can still pay $4000 for two tickets and still meet Brady and Jules.

I have no idea how much they are getting for this or if any of it is going to charity. Nothing is stated on their site.

Not sure what the big deal is. Brady loves this stuff and is passionate about positive thinking, avocados, Uggs, Expensive mattresses and PJ's. I like Brady but he's not a guy I would hang out with. I drink beer/wine, eat Pizza without avocados and wear old running shoes. Pretty sure he wouldn't hang out with me either.

OMG, I had a vegetarian burger Saturday night with avocado on it. I'm ****ing brainwashed!

Oh, wait, I had a Macallan 18, too. I'm fine. I'm ok. I'm ok.

 

[Ian]

At the end of the day you're the guy running a seemingly successful news site and forum and I'm the unemployed schlub. I just don't like singling out one quote on the guy to get a sensationalist dig in on him. Smells like overkill.

Honestly, if that's the case, the only real difference between you and I is just that I work full-time, that's about it. I've been running this site in my free time for the last almost 20-years and things have stayed about the same, although now that I'm older, I'm O.K. with that. When I was a lot younger, I had different aspirations but reality is what it is.

If I ran it differently and really manipulated headlines and included more of the sensationalist nonsense the other sites do, I might be in a different position. But we'd be yet another site throwing stuff out there that would be one thing and then you'd read it, and it would be another. I don't agree with that, so we don't do it. I'd love to make money but sometimes you have to figure out what's more important, and fortunately I enjoy my normal job and since my wife and I both work, I'm good with where we're at. Although I have a daughter in college - so I'll be better once she's out

But, yes, I included the quote in the title on this one - which he did say and there's enough context to warrant it being egregious enough where him saying it was unnecessary - so I included it there since it was relevant. That was my only motive here, to make people who may not have heard it aware and to express my thoughts about the fact I disagreed with it. Hopefully when you read the full post after I added it here (which I don't believe you did when you first commented), it made more sense.

 

[Simpelton]

I read the article before I commented. That's why I commented. I was tempted to give the whole thread a wide berth but I felt there was likely to be a missing context here because no one would be dumb enough to go after Edelman right now when he'd just played such a huge role in a Superbowl win and lo and behind, I was right, Minihane wasn't going after Edelman at all, he was going after Robins.

I do feel that focusing on that one quote removed it from context, and I do feel that it wasn't warranted because Minihane said it as a side comment and it was tangential at best to the point he was driving at. i also think that the point Minihane was driving at was controversial enough to draw a few clicks without cherry picking side quotes, and the article and the thread would have benefited from a title that gave the content a more complete representation.

 

[Joker]

Another day...another "Brady's gay! Brady's a cheater! Brady's phone! Brady's waterslide! Brady dresses like a metrosexual! Brady is liar because a gofer said deflator nine months before Shytheadsgate!" firestorm of sub-mongloidism.

Kirk Minihane? You actually take this mutt seriously?

 

[Fixit]

Honestly, if that's the case, the only real difference between you and I is just that I work full-time, that's about it. I've been running this site in my free time for the last almost 20-years and things have stayed about the same, although now that I'm older, I'm O.K. with that. When I was a lot younger, I had different aspirations but reality is what it is.

If I ran it differently and really manipulated headlines and included more of the sensationalist nonsense the other sites do, I might be in a different position. But we'd be yet another site throwing stuff out there that would be one thing and then you'd read it, and it would be another. I don't agree with that, so we don't do it. I'd love to make money but sometimes you have to figure out what's more important, and fortunately I enjoy my normal job and since my wife and I both work, I'm good with where we're at. Although I have a daughter in college - so I'll be better once she's out

But, yes, I included the quote in the title on this one - which he did say and there's enough context to warrant it being egregious enough where him saying it was unnecessary - so I included it there since it was relevant. That was my only motive here, to make people who may not have heard it aware and to express my thoughts about the fact I disagreed with it. Hopefully when you read the full post after I added it here (which I don't believe you did when you first commented), it made more sense.

Quick question: why the Hell are you bothering to defend yourself here? Your site, your rules, and you're also right.

 

[n1997y]

It is unlikely that Tony Robbins is using traditional NLP when dealing with a large group. He may use elements of NLP, but traditional NLP is designed to work on a single person.

NLP requires the practitioner to develop rapport with the subject, which is dependent on "pacing". "Pacing" is achieved by mirroring a subjects non-verbal cues (breathing rate, eye movement, posture etc...) and using verbal cues to direct attention to true, easily validated shared experiences (sounds, smells etc..).

Once rapport is established the practitioner will start to lead the subject, using verbal techniques to gather relevant information from the subject's unconscious and break and create associations to modify how the subject sees and reacts to specific stimuli. Throughout this entire process, rapport must be maintained or re-established to continue leading.

Although I've seen very little of Tony Robbins, I suspect he uses a variety of techniques and modalities that are very effective on certain personality types in specific states of consciousness. There may be aspects of NLP used in data gathering or leading, but the way NLP uses pacing and feedback is certainly not part of it.

It is often very difficult to retrain the unconscious, and there are techniques that can be used that require the help of another. We must continue to change and evolve, just make sure you trust both the intentions and the intuition of anyone that you allow to help reprogram you unconscious.

Useful info from Galeb. I'm much less worried about a self-help self-promoter using this on a willing (paid) audience than I am of charlatan politicians using it to lead sheeple down the road of national self-destruction.

As far as TB12 and his sidekick JE11 I'm not surprised that a self-help guru has appeal to a self-made superstar who is well known for seeking every possible source of advantage.

I'd not be surprised to learn that Brady has his psychic whisperers (psychic nutritionists?) just as he has his personal dietician and his personal throwing mechanics coach. So what if Robbins or some of his disciples have Brady's ear?

How would folks feel if it turns out Brady has been following Robbins and practicing what he preaches for years? Can't say for sure he hasn't.

So Brady could be a follower of TR (seems likely to me) and introducing Jules to him, or perhaps curious about another possible source of an edge to help improve his play. Certainly not worth the amount of vitriol thrown at TB and JE by a jealous hater.

 

[Ian]

I read the article before I commented. That's why I commented. I was tempted to give the whole thread a wide berth but I felt there was likely to be a missing context here because no one would be dumb enough to go after Edelman right now when he'd just played such a huge role in a Superbowl win and lo and behind, I was right, Minihane wasn't going after Edelman at all, he was going after Robins.

I do feel that focusing on that one quote removed it from context, and I do feel that it wasn't warranted because Minihane said it as a side comment and it was tangential at best to the point he was driving at. i also think that the point Minihane was driving at was controversial enough to draw a few clicks without cherry picking side quotes, and the article and the thread would have benefited from a title that gave the content a more complete representation.

I feel like you're missing the point. The point of what I wrote was me taking offense to him going too far in his comments on Edelman and I included the full context of where it stemmed from. That one comment was the primary exact point of the article, I didn't just include it as a side-note to get clicks. I wrote the piece based on that exact quote and the fact I was really taken aback by that and that's why it was in the title.

With all due respect, do you honestly feel that it was necessary for Minihane to go as far as to call Edelman "essentially brain-dead" while he was going after Robbins necessary to get his point across? Because that was my honest reason for writing it. That comment was completely out of left field, whether it's part of his schtick or not and definitely struck a cord, especially given the fact he appears on that station.

And it's O.K. if you disagree - that's obviously fine. I just want you to know the reason that quote was in the title. It's because that was what I was focusing on - not for the sake of trying to get clicks.

 

[Ian]

Quick question: why the Hell are you bothering to defend yourself here? Your site, your rules, and you're also right.

I'm not worried about being right - just wanted to at least clarify why the quote was used in the title. It's obviously fine if someone disagrees with the content. I just don't ever want anyone to misinterpret the intent.

 

[Simpelton]

Quick question: why the Hell are you bothering to defend yourself here? Your site, your rules, and you're also right.

Because he's a reasonable man, and reasonable men allow themselves to answer reasonable questions.

I think Ian has given good answers in this thread. I disagree with his answers, but they're good answers nonetheless. I'm content that his reasoning is sound and while I still disagree with his approach he defended it well so I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

 

[Fixit]

I'm not worried about being right - just wanted to at least clarify why the quote was used in the title. It's obviously fine if someone disagrees with the content. I just don't ever want anyone to misinterpret the intent.

Only one person did, and I had to click "show ignored content" to find that out. But, hey, your show.

 

[Ian]

Because he's a reasonable man, and reasonable men allow themselves to answer reasonable questions.

I think Ian has given good answers in this thread. I disagree with his answers, but they're good answers nonetheless. I'm content that his reasoning is sound and while I still disagree with his approach he defended it well so I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

You're a good man, and I certainly appreciate the feedback and kind words.

 

[Ian]

Because he's a reasonable man, and reasonable men allow themselves to answer reasonable questions.

I think Ian has given good answers in this thread. I disagree with his answers, but they're good answers nonetheless. I'm content that his reasoning is sound and while I still disagree with his approach he defended it well so I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

I'll also follow up with saying that believe me, there's nothing more irritating than getting a ton of clicks for the wrong reason. It's annoying to get more reads on articles like this than stuff you spend 90 minutes or more writing (this entry beat out the Daily Notebook entry today by a landslide). But again, just another example of the state of where things are at online right now

 

[Simpelton]

Or where people's minds are in general. This is nothing new under the sun. The internet didn't invent sensational headlines and soundbites are as old as human history.

One of the greatest wars in ancient history was a battle of the soundbites. I'm thinking specifically of the Crusades. "Deus Vult" versus "Allahu Akbar." Pithy, catchy soundbites designed to appeal to the culture and religion they sprang from, excite people, and drive attention to an intended agenda. Not a lot of room for reasonable disagreement there and a lot of good men, devoted to their gods and trying to be as good of men as they could, died as a result. And we're still suffering the consequences today.

That's an extreme example, but it highlights the problem of substituting soundbiting for thought. As a student of history, I take that kind of historical lesson to heart. There's a reason why I'm not a big fan of soundbiting as a habit for any writer to fall into and will continue to be sensitive about anything that slips from reporting into the direction of sensationalizing or provoking.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Or where people's minds are in general. This is nothing new under the sun. The internet didn't invent sensational headlines and soundbites are as old as human history.

One of the greatest wars in ancient history was a battle of the soundbites. I'm thinking specifically of the Crusades. "Deus Vult" versus "Allahu Akbar." Pithy, catchy soundbites designed to appeal to the culture and religion they sprang from, excite people, and drive attention to an intended agenda. Not a lot of room for reasonable disagreement there and a lot of good men, devoted to their gods and trying to be as good of men as they could, died as a result. And we're still suffering the consequences today.

That's an extreme example, but it highlights the problem of substituting soundbiting for thought. As a student of history, I take that kind of historical lesson to heart. There's a reason why I'm not a big fan of soundbiting as a habit for any writer to fall into and will continue to be sensitive about anything that slips from reporting into the direction of sensationalizing or provoking.

But in this case, the soundbite was just as idiotic than entire transcript writ large. It was actually quite representative of the drivel that came out of this guy's mouth. There are plenty of cases where your appeal for context would be received well, but this is the wrong thread to wax philosophical about a guy being pigeonholed because a soundbite misrepresented his balanced thoughts. His thoughts were crass, sensationalist, and, ironically, brain-dead.

 

[Tony2046]

I read the article before I commented. That's why I commented. I was tempted to give the whole thread a wide berth but I felt there was likely to be a missing context here because no one would be dumb enough to go after Edelman right now when he'd just played such a huge role in a Superbowl win and lo and behind, I was right, Minihane wasn't going after Edelman at all, he was going after Robins.

I do feel that focusing on that one quote removed it from context, and I do feel that it wasn't warranted because Minihane said it as a side comment and it was tangential at best to the point he was driving at. i also think that the point Minihane was driving at was controversial enough to draw a few clicks without cherry picking side quotes, and the article and the thread would have benefited from a title that gave the content a more complete representation.

1. You did not read the article before you made your original post.

2. Minirat called Edelman a meathead.

You are now posting a lame attempt to recover from your out of context overreaction.

 

[Thelonious]

Minihane is kind of a loose cannon, but he's smart and funny, so I always enjoyed listening to his show. Unfortunately, they have brought in Riemer, Renni, and at times Tomase I guess to "balance the show" politically or something. With this infusion of assh..s, the show is now unendurable, and I haven't listened to it for weeks. I'm sure they'll bring in Oprah or some such PC doll as a consultant and it will soon be indistinguishable from the sort of leftist pabulum which dominates "sports talk" these days. Too bad and, for the the record, f them all.

 

[shmessy]

Ian, you are a nice a guy and are giving a bottomfeeder like Minihane too much cred.

.

 

[primetime]

Edelman slapped a friend's sister's phone out of her hand when he was drunk in Southie a couple weekends ago. The fact these guys are credulous manchildren even a decade after entering the NFL isn't particularly surprising; for most of them there's never any real impetus to grow up and they've been coddled and treated as special their entire lives. That said, they're participants in our national bloodsport for the team I root for, I don't need them to be anything more than a gladiator.

 

[Simpelton]

1. You did not read the article before you made your original post.

I read the article.

2. Minirat called Edelman a meathead.

I love Edelman, but he *is* a meathead.