ESPN Removes Game 6 (Schilling Bloody Sock) from Sox Documentary

denverpatsfan said:

I am enjoying my BSPN dividend. I save money every month since we dropped all sports programming from my DTV service. It all adds up.

Click to expand...

OT: Your post brought to mind my SiriusXM Radio fees charged. I forgot to call Sirius last weekend to "cancel" my account and noticed I was charged on my AMEX $57.70 for the next 3 months = $230.80 / year….which is ridiculous. For the past 4 years, I call up to cancel and they start shuffling you around to "specialists" to "close" your account but really to offer you better deals. And after saying NO to each deal they finally offer 5 months for $25 plus taxes = $32. It's on you to call them before 5 months are over to play the game all over.
If anyone is getting better deals…let us know.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Apparently Trent Dilfer has gotten the boot too. but in ESPN's defense, I think that is based solely on suckage

Click to expand...

And yet they are keeping Cris Carter...

ESPN has big big problems.
1) Cable operators have had it with ESPN's excessive fees on too many channels
2) American are dropping cable at an accelerating rate
3) The millennial demographic hates television

So….renegotiated lower fees with less subscribers and less viewership from the key demographic ====>> less money coming in to ESPN which happens to be Disney's most profitable division…..and less revenue at a time when…

4) ESPN is paying out massive rights fees to the NFL, MLB, NBA, College sports

In other words, the ESPN model has been turned upside down and it is no coincidence that high priced "personalties" are being jettisoned every chance ESPN gets .

5) Then factor in us long time sports junkies that who can't stand the arrogance of ESPN and purposely avoid the network .

6) Regarding their liberal leanings….and it is undeniable…..all I can say is "liberal media" has consistently been bad business and in this divided country, for a sports network to alienate a significant portion of the population with a liberal social agenda is business suicide….see MSNBC. CNN has just finally figured out (reluctantly) that center right is a better business model from a viewer and consumer standpoint. Why the Boards at these media conglomerates allow any "slant" is beyond me.

F**k ESPN……Get out Mike Reiss!!!!

Childish move by ESPN. Nothing unusual about that though.

Didn't Schilling get fired over the whole guys who self-identify as girls get to use the female bathroom thing? Much ado about a silly law catering to a tiny group of people's mental disorder. But I see opportunity.

Next year at Foxboro, I will not be waiting in line with the rest of you suckers. I will be self-identifying as a girl when it's time to drain my tailgating fluids. I'll even sit to pee rather than splattering the seat.

In fact, last year I ate way too much bratwurst while tailgating and had to take a dump in one of the plastic potties. It was disgusting. I'll self-identify as a dog next time and squat in the parking lot!

I'm starting to warm up to becoming a professional victim.

Oh ya, ESPN blows donkey dik.

borg said:

OT: Your post brought to mind my SiriusXM Radio fees charged. I forgot to call Sirius last weekend to "cancel" my account and noticed I was charged on my AMEX $57.70 for the next 3 months = $230.80 / year….which is ridiculous. For the past 4 years, I call up to cancel and they start shuffling you around to "specialists" to "close" your account but really to offer you better deals. And after saying NO to each deal they finally offer 5 months for $25 plus taxes = $32. It's on you to call them before 5 months are over to play the game all over.
If anyone is getting better deals…let us know.

Click to expand...

In order to get the best deal with SXM I pay for 3-years up front. $231 per year does not sound right. I'm a huge SXM fan since I am in the truck for hours at a time for work. I cannot go back to terrestrial radio.

borg said:

F**k ESPN……Get out Mike Reiss!!!!

Click to expand...

#FreeTedyBruschi

borg said:

OT: Your post brought to mind my SiriusXM Radio fees charged. I forgot to call Sirius last weekend to "cancel" my account and noticed I was charged on my AMEX $57.70 for the next 3 months = $230.80 / year….which is ridiculous. For the past 4 years, I call up to cancel and they start shuffling you around to "specialists" to "close" your account but really to offer you better deals. And after saying NO to each deal they finally offer 5 months for $25 plus taxes = $32. It's on you to call them before 5 months are over to play the game all over.
If anyone is getting better deals…let us know.

Click to expand...

You can always listen to Squeeky and the Douche for free . Surprised ESPN hasn't scooped them up they would be perfect.

denverpatsfan said:

In order to get the best deal with SXM I pay for 3-years up front. $231 per year does not sound right. I'm a huge SXM fan since I am in the truck for hours at a time for work. I cannot go back to terrestrial radio.

Click to expand...

It's so superior to terrestrial radio, it's not even funny. I remember people predicting it wouldn't survive 11 years ago when Stern came aboard because, after all, who would want to pay for radio? How wrong they were.

KDPPatsfan85 said:

There are no federal laws that state they can refuse service based on sexuality. The civil rights act of 1964 only states...race, religion, color, or national origin.

Click to expand...

States are free to have stricter non-discrimination laws, and in the states where the cake, photography, etc. crap has happened, they do. Those ridiculous lawsuits have been based on state law, not federal law.

I, for one, feel that any non-discrimination law that compels artistic expression should be ruled illegitimate and unconstitutional.

So if some gay/black/evangelical/whatever person wants to buy a plain sheet cake? Suck it up, buttercup, you have to sell it to them. But once they are ordering something that requires bona fide creativity you should be free to refuse to do it.

That said, I would not patronize an establishment that I heard was making such refusals since I personally find such bigotry repulsive. But nonetheless, they should be free to do so without being able to be sued and penalized over it.

What's next? Conscripting writers to write the govt-mandated "truth"?

It's an ESPN show airing on their network and there was a game than ran long that obliged them to shorten the program following it. I would be surprised if, the next time they replay the 4 Days in October show, the Game 6/Schilling part is not included.

Having said that, the 2004 Red Sox show was not the first program on after the softball game. There was a short 30 for 30 about the aborted trade of Alex Rodriguez to the Red Sox. My understanding is that ran in it's entirety and then the Red Sox 30 for 30 was shortened. Due to time constraints, ESPN was going to have to edit one of their shows. That's fine. That they chose to edit out a segment on Schilling shows that pettiness played a role in the decision. It opens the door (or provides another example) for the idea network makes decisions based on who they want to marginalize or praise.

FreeTedWilliams said:

Again, the constitution is clear that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, but to say that the framers meant that to mean separation of church and state is dishonest.

Click to expand...

Especially since it was completely legal for states to have mandatory, taxpayer-supported religion until the 14th Amendment (passed after the Civil War) was ruled to hold the First Amendment against the states and not only against the federal government.

Of course, most/all states had gotten rid of their established religions before then, but they did have established religions into the 1820s and beyond (so well after the US Constitution was written and ratified and the Bill of Rights added to it).

I've bookmarked this for those who need a memory refresh.

F ESPN.

http://www.blohards.com/blohards/audio/alcs.swf

btw, I've been offline for a few days, so excuse my ignorance, but is this tweet what the schilling chatter is all about?

QuantumMechanic said:

...That said, I would not patronize an establishment that I heard was making such refusals since I personally find such bigotry repulsive...

Click to expand...

What bigotry?

Some people cherry pick the constitution to suit their own agenda.
Here is the entire first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not shocking. It's what the media has become in general. Rewriting history to fit their own biased narrative and not reporting the actual facts of anything. From spygate to deflategate, it's what those d-bags do.

SammyBlueCat said:

Some people cherry pick the constitution to suit their own agenda.
Here is the entire first amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but some of those "some people" are Supreme Court justices.

Koma said:

It's an ESPN show airing on their network and there was a game than ran long that obliged them to shorten the program following it. I would be surprised if, the next time they replay the 4 Days in October show, the Game 6/Schilling part is not included.

Having said that, the 2004 Red Sox show was not the first program on after the softball game. There was a short 30 for 30 about the aborted trade of Alex Rodriguez to the Red Sox. My understanding is that ran in it's entirety and then the Red Sox 30 for 30 was shortened. Due to time constraints, ESPN was going to have to edit one of their shows. That's fine. That they chose to edit out a segment on Schilling shows that pettiness played a role in the decision. It opens the door (or provides another example) for the idea network makes decisions based on who they want to marginalize or praise.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of other parts they could have cut out. Game 6? It was kinda key to the whole thing (especially when Schill did it again in Game 2 of the WS).

Deus Irae said:

So a lousy company making an incredibly stupid firing choice has led to yet another discussion showing that people don't understand the U.S. Constitution. Interesting threads of late...

Click to expand...

Add to it a Hitler reference... Godwin's law was reached very early.