OT: Ivins Kicked out

For_The_U

Junior
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
2,018
@CaneSince4Ever ivins NEVER threatened to write a negative. that is a fact. he said if an all star rep asked him about an MNW player do you think he was going to write a glowing review? meaning, how can I write a review if I have no access to their games
This is such a weak take IMO. Go back and look at exactly how Ivins phrased that tweet. And mind you, it was in response to being threatened with the be careful or this could cost you a lot more than a spring game:

"A lot more than a spring game? The next time a major all star game asks for my opinion on a MNW kid do you think I'm going to leave a glowing review?"

If he was simply saying "I won't be able to write a good review if I'm not able to watch the kids live", he absolutely would NOT have phrased it that way. The phrase "You think I'm going to leave" and his decision to use the term "glowing" there speak volumes and clearly reveal his intent with that statement. He got his panties in a wad and fired back an immature threat to an immature threat. Those of you are who are trying to argue that he did not mean he would impact the kids' reviews there are either being mindblowingly naive or BS'ing for your own agenda. There is no question what he meant when he wrote that. It was impulsive, uncalled for, and dumb as hell. And he knows that, which is why he erased it shortly thereafter.

Now I don't think Ivins actually would intentionally hit a MNW kid re his reviews in return for this. I think it was nothing but a stupid barb thrown back in the midst of all the drama when he was understandably really pissed and being attacked by that ex-coach MNW fuckwit. He got threatened, so he impulsively used the main ammo he could think of to fire a threat at MNW back. But the spin job going on by some here re that comment is equally as dumb. No sane person would think "The next time a major all star game asks for my opinion on a MNW kid do you think I'm going to leave a glowing review" was intended to mean "I can't write good reviews if I can't watch them live". C'mon, man.
 

OBLIVION

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
3,418
Losing the top kids?. Which battle have we lost at MNW?. Other than Amari Cooper who was a Um f*ck UP AGAIN.

I dont think they have talent like STA (There isnt 2 teams in the state that does), you were the 1 that stated they needed to joing the arms race...which was comical considering they just won back to back state champs. Not sure what they need to join the arms race for they have been doing pretty solidly. Their job is to win states ..not rankings.

After Artie Burns they had a little down time when central took over but they have hit their stride again. Your spinning it as some thing like we dont get players from there, when your wrong. I honestly think you dont know what a "feeder" school is so i'll leave it at that. Your likely the only person on this board that doesnt view MNW as a feeder school for UM.
I guess we just didn't want the other 7 top 50 players from MNW. Hell you could add James Cook as another top 50 player. After losing out on every RB last year but the excuse will be. He didn't want us. He wasn't really from MNW but he is from the rockets. A team we actually land top players from.

We just wanted the 201st player and the 96th from MNW. We didn't want Atwell over Ezzard. Whom isn't even on the team. We didn't want the DL that went to Pitt.

Yeah getting the 201st type player makes MNW a feeder school.

At one time we got who we wanted and that may happen again, but no at this time I don't consider them a feeder school.

They backed into the state title game. They got beat by the good programs and the Rockets slipped. The 2nd time around. 5 loss team being loaded. Sun shines on a dogs ass every so often.
 

tyrn

Sophomore
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
1,362
HOW THE **** CAN YOU SAY WITH CERTAINTY THAT'S WHAT HE MEANS? DO YOU KNOW HIM PERSONALLY THEN YOU NEED TO PUT "IN YOUR OPINION" THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS DON'T WRITE THAT SHYT LIKE IT'S A F.UCKI.NG FACT.




IF YOU'RE SUPPORTING IRVINS BEHAVIOR EITHER YOU'RE A RACIST POS OR YOU'RE A RACIST POS AND DON'T KNOW IT. SEE HOW THAT WORKS WHEN I DO IT I DON'T KNOW YOU HOW CAN I SAY FOR A FACT THAT YOU'RE A RACIST POS. IT'S AN OPINION.

A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD LOOK AT HIS POST OF IRVIN'S " DO YOU THINK I'M GOING TO GIVE KIDS FROM MNW A GLOWING REVIEW" AS A WAY OF SAYING HE'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING POSITIVE TO SAY ABOUT KIDS FROM THAT SCHOOL.


WHY SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHY BRING THE KIDS UP PERIOD. YOU'RE ARGUING WITH AN ADULT WHY NOT SAY I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ANY REVIEWS ON THIS SCHOOL BECAUSE I'M NOT ABLE TO SEE THEM PRACTICE ETC TO GIVE A PROPER EVALUATION. HE'S A REPORTER HE KNOWS HOW TO WORD THINGS APPROPRIATELY HE WORDED IT THAT WAY BECAUSE HE MEANT IT THAT WAY. HE'S A F.UCC.ING POS AND THAT COACH IS A DICK HEAD FOR NOT SETTING A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR THE KIDS HE COACHES.


THIS THREAD NEEDS TO BE CLOSED I'M GOING TO START CALLING YOU MOTHER F.UCK.ERS. OUT ON YOUR BULLS.HYT IN A MINUTE. STARTING TO PISS ME OFF WITH YALL F.UC.K NYGGA SHYT.
First of all stop screaming.

Second, how can he leave a glowing review of players he has no access to?

He never said he would leave a bad review, you and dumb asses like you are twisting his words to fit your narrative.

He knew people would do that once he realized he didn’t word his response in the best way, so he deleted it.

And the only one who brought race into it was the dumb ass coach / assistant.

What did Ivins do that was remotely racist?

Please tell without the damn cap locks.
 
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
2,321
First of all stop screaming.

Second, how can he leave a glowing review of players he has no access to?

He never said he would leave a bad review, you and dumb asses like you are twisting his words to fit your narrative.

He knew people would do that once he realized he didn’t word his response in the best way, so he deleted it.

And the only one who brought race into it was the dumb ass coach / assistant.

What did Ivins do that was remotely racist?

Please tell without the damn cap locks.

FIRST OFF F.UC.K NYGGA WHO YOU TALKING TOO?

TAKE YO PU.SSY. ASS BACK OVER TO 247 IF I WANT YOUR OPINION I'D BEAT IT OUT YOU SECONDLY.


ALL YOU D.IC.K EATING FA.GG.OTS NEED TO STOP WRITING TO ME BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS NEXT LEVEL I'LL KILL YOU **** NYGGA.

I'M NOT ON HERE SELLING TICKETS I'LL REALLY PUT SOME HOT SHYT IN YO HEAD PU.SSY. AZZ F.UC.K NYGGA.



LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS BYTCH OR YOUR PHONE NUMBER IN YOUR NEXT MESSAGE. IMMA DO SOMETHING TO YA AND SLEEP GOOD THAT NIGHT.


PHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS OR DONT WRITE BACK TO ME.
 

westcoastcanes

At least not Marrero
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
4,568
FIRST OFF F.UC.K NYGGA WHO YOU TALKING TOO?

TAKE YO PU.SSY. ASS BACK OVER TO 247 IF I WANT YOUR OPINION I'D BEAT IT OUT YOU SECONDLY.


ALL YOU D.IC.K EATING FA.GG.OTS NEED TO STOP WRITING TO ME BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS NEXT LEVEL I'LL KILL YOU **** NYGGA.

I'M NOT ON HERE SELLING TICKETS I'LL REALLY PUT SOME HOT SHYT IN YO HEAD PU.SSY. AZZ F.UC.K NYGGA.



LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS BYTCH OR YOUR PHONE NUMBER IN YOUR NEXT MESSAGE. IMMA DO SOMETHING TO YA AND SLEEP GOOD THAT NIGHT.


PHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS OR DONT WRITE BACK TO ME.
The biggest embarrassment to this fan base to ever velcro them up. At least it is entertaining I suppose, if you think about it coming from a FAS developmentally challenged individual giving it their all.
 

No_Fly_Zone

Sophomore
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
2,077
This is such a weak take IMO. Go back and look at exactly how Ivins phrased that tweet. And mind you, it was in response to being threatened with the be careful or this could cost you a lot more than a spring game:

"A lot more than a spring game? The next time a major all star game asks for my opinion on a MNW kid do you think I'm going to leave a glowing review?"

If he was simply saying "I won't be able to write a good review if I'm not able to watch the kids live", he absolutely would NOT have phrased it that way. The phrase "You think I'm going to leave" and his decision to use the term "glowing" there speak volumes and clearly reveal his intent with that statement. He got his panties in a wad and fired back an immature threat to an immature threat. Those of you are who are trying to argue that he did not mean he would impact the kids' reviews there are either being mindblowingly naive or BS'ing for your own agenda. There is no question what he meant when he wrote that. It was impulsive, uncalled for, and dumb as hell. And he knows that, which is why he erased it shortly thereafter.

Now I don't think Ivins actually would intentionally hit a MNW kid re his reviews in return for this. I think it was nothing but a stupid barb thrown back in the midst of all the drama when he was understandably really pissed and being attacked by that ex-coach MNW fuckwit. He got threatened, so he impulsively used the main ammo he could think of to fire a threat at MNW back. But the spin job going on by some here re that comment is equally as dumb. No sane person would think "The next time a major all star game asks for my opinion on a MNW kid do you think I'm going to leave a glowing review" was intended to mean "I can't write good reviews if I can't watch them live". C'mon, man.
My position is and has been reasonable minds can differ about what was intended by Ivins' Tweet, and that I, personally, did not take it to mean Ivins was threatening to spread negative reviews about players b/c of his treatment and the pseudo-coach clapping off. But since that position, to you, means I am either "mindblowingly naive or BS-ing for [my] own agenda" or not a "sane person," I thought I would explain it to you.

You and some of the prior posters' argument focusing on the qualifier "glowing" in attempting to attribute "clear" intent is illogical. The argument, as I understand it, starts with the foundation that Ivins's use of the adjective "glowing" specifies that he is not going to "leave" a positive review. At this point, we agree. Ivins got dragged into a stupid argument (like me now), felt threatened, and wanted to levy a threat in return.

But the illogical part comes next. You make the leap that if he isn't leaving a positive review, then Ivins is "clearly" implying his intent to leave negative reviews of MNW kids. This assumes that there are only two options: (1) leaving a positive review; and (2) leaving a negative review. It ignores the third viable option - providing no review. All Ivins says is that he will not leave a positive review. Now, you're going to say, but we all agree he was being defensive in this context and wanted to threaten the pseudo-coach in return. Again, we agree on that point. But where we disagree is on the threat levied. You suggest the only threat conceivable is the threat of a negative review. This ignores the threat of silence, which, in the right context (like deciding on invitees to a H.S. all star game), can be just as damaging.

A form of strawman argument is then used: "If Ivins really meant X, then he would have said X." This ignores a few critical realities. First, there are many different ways to say a thing in the English language... just because someone does not use the most precise means to communicate a point, does not mean he intended to communicate a different point. Second, people often fail to say what they mean. And third, people often don't mean what they say. You have actually acknowledged this third truth, in stating you "don't think Ivins actually would intentionally hit a MNW kid re his reviews in return for this."

All Ivins definitively said was that he would not leave a positive review for a MNW kid. Which, by the way, already shows a huge lack of integrity. Think about it. It is entirely possible for Ivins to see MNW kids while covering other teams and camps and form opinions of them. If, as a supposed journalist/reporter, he has seen an MNW kid outside of MNW, honestly forms the opinion that the recruit is a top So. Fla. recruit, but then is silent when asked about the kid, not only is he being vengeful against a kid who did nothing to him, but he's also demonstrating a lack of journalistic integrity. So, to be clear, even taking what Ivins said at purely face value, it's still pretty fvcked.

But equating a failure to leave a positive review (even to a kid who Ivins knows deserves one) with leaving a negative review is simply false. And being unabashedly resolute regarding the existence of some unwritten context or intent behind two sentences in a Tweet seems the less sane course of conduct to me.

As far as agendas, I don't follow Ivins (or anyone else) on Twitter and don't have a 247 subscription. I have no loyalty to that guy whatsoever. But I do question the reasoning of someone engaging in so many ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and false dichotomies as the bolded above.
 

Don canon

Go Canes!!!!!
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
437
FIRST OFF F.UC.K NYGGA WHO YOU TALKING TOO?

TAKE YO PU.SSY. ASS BACK OVER TO 247 IF I WANT YOUR OPINION I'D BEAT IT OUT YOU SECONDLY.


ALL YOU D.IC.K EATING FA.GG.OTS NEED TO STOP WRITING TO ME BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS NEXT LEVEL I'LL KILL YOU **** NYGGA.

I'M NOT ON HERE SELLING TICKETS I'LL REALLY PUT SOME HOT SHYT IN YO HEAD PU.SSY. AZZ F.UC.K NYGGA.



LEAVE YOUR ADDRESS BYTCH OR YOUR PHONE NUMBER IN YOUR NEXT MESSAGE. IMMA DO SOMETHING TO YA AND SLEEP GOOD THAT NIGHT.


PHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS OR DONT WRITE BACK TO ME.
The GOAT!!!!!
 

For_The_U

Junior
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
2,018
My position is and has been reasonable minds can differ about what was intended by Ivins' Tweet, and that I, personally, did not take it to mean Ivins was threatening to spread negative reviews about players b/c of his treatment and the pseudo-coach clapping off. But since that position, to you, means I am either "mindblowingly naive or BS-ing for [my] own agenda" or not a "sane person," I thought I would explain it to you.

You and some of the prior posters' argument focusing on the qualifier "glowing" in attempting to attribute "clear" intent is illogical. The argument, as I understand it, starts with the foundation that Ivins's use of the adjective "glowing" specifies that he is not going to "leave" a positive review. At this point, we agree. Ivins got dragged into a stupid argument (like me now), felt threatened, and wanted to levy a threat in return.

But the illogical part comes next. You make the leap that if he isn't leaving a positive review, then Ivins is "clearly" implying his intent to leave negative reviews of MNW kids. This assumes that there are only two options: (1) leaving a positive review; and (2) leaving a negative review. It ignores the third viable option - providing no review. All Ivins says is that he will not leave a positive review. Now, you're going to say, but we all agree he was being defensive in this context and wanted to threaten the pseudo-coach in return. Again, we agree on that point. But where we disagree is on the threat levied. You suggest the only threat conceivable is the threat of a negative review. This ignores the threat of silence, which, in the right context (like deciding on invitees to a H.S. all star game), can be just as damaging.

A form of strawman argument is then used: "If Ivins really meant X, then he would have said X." This ignores a few critical realities. First, there are many different ways to say a thing in the English language... just because someone does not use the most precise means to communicate a point, does not mean he intended to communicate a different point. Second, people often fail to say what they mean. And third, people often don't mean what they say. You have actually acknowledged this third truth, in stating you "don't think Ivins actually would intentionally hit a MNW kid re his reviews in return for this."

All Ivins definitively said was that he would not leave a positive review for a MNW kid. Which, by the way, already shows a huge lack of integrity. Think about it. It is entirely possible for Ivins to see MNW kids while covering other teams and camps and form opinions of them. If, as a supposed journalist/reporter, he has seen an MNW kid outside of MNW, honestly forms the opinion that the recruit is a top So. Fla. recruit, but then is silent when asked about the kid, not only is he being vengeful against a kid who did nothing to him, but he's also demonstrating a lack of journalistic integrity. So, to be clear, even taking what Ivins said at purely face value, it's still pretty fvcked.

But equating a failure to leave a positive review (even to a kid who Ivins knows deserves one) with leaving a negative review is simply false. And being unabashedly resolute regarding the existence of some unwritten context or intent behind two sentences in a Tweet seems the less sane course of conduct to me.

As far as agendas, I don't follow Ivins (or anyone else) on Twitter and don't have a 247 subscription. I have no loyalty to that guy whatsoever. But I do question the reasoning of someone engaging in so many ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and false dichotomies as the bolded above.
WTF did I just read?

If you think "The next time a major all star game asks for my opinion on a MNW kid do you think I'm going to leave a glowing review?" is analogous to "I won't be able to leave any reviews if I can't watch the kids live"... then, yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nothing you said in this diarrhea of the mouth above changes my original point whatsoever.
 
Top