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.