Freedom to speak has price
JASON WHITLOCK
The Kansas City Star

Previous columns
Good news for those of you complaining that I spend too much time taping ESPN television shows.

The World Wide Leader dumped me Monday afternoon because of critical comments I made about Mike Lupica and Scoop Jackson in a blog interview that ran on Friday. You can read the interview at www.thebiglead.com.

Lupica, of course, is a sports columnist for the New York Daily News and a longtime panelist on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters.” Jackson is the infamous ESPN.com sports columnist who bragged in a recent column about telling black kids they had a better chance of being NBA players than sportswriters.

James Cohen, an executive at the network, called me Monday and asked me whether the comments attributed to me in the interview were true. When I said “yes,” he informed me that I could no longer appear on ESPN television shows and that my November appearances on “Pardon the Interruption” would be canceled.

I wasn’t surprised. ESPN, a terrific network, has always been hypersensitive to criticism, especially when it comes from its independent-contract employees. Over the six years I’ve worked for ESPN, I’ve received complaining phone calls from its executives almost every time I’ve written a critical word about the network.

I take being a journalist/columnist very seriously. To me, being a contract employee for ESPN did not mean I’d surrendered my right to blast the World Wide Leader in Sports for making the awful TV show “Playmakers,” employing as expert analysts clownish buffoons with drug problems such as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Irvin, and publishing the gangsta-posturing rantings of a poor writer.

ESPN is a powerful newsmaker in the sports world. As a sports journalist/columnist, I thought it would be wrong to ignore obvious topics just because I drew an occasional check from ESPN.

I’m not stepping on any high horse. It wouldn’t hold me.

The fact is I can’t be happy unless I’m true to myself. I like to criticize and analyze. Every coach, teacher or boss I’ve ever had would tell you that. My parents would tell you that. Every woman who has ever tolerated my company for more than six months would tell you that.

I guess ESPN thought I would get the message and pipe down. I can’t pipe down about things I’m passionate about.

So, in the blog interview, I answered the questions that were asked about my departure from ESPN.com Page 2 to AOL Sports (two weeks ago I told my editor at Page 2 that I was moving my once-a-week Internet column to AOL Sports) and a run-in I had with Mike Lupica on “The Sports Reporters” in August.

I told the blog that part of the reason I was leaving Page 2 was because I was uncomfortable with Page 2’s relationship with Scoop Jackson. Much of his writing is childish, anti-white and a caricature of a negative black stereotype. I didn’t say it in the blog interview, but it’s my belief that it is irresponsible for the World Wide Leader to publish much of what Scoop writes. Over the last year, I’ve shared these opinions with ESPN executives countless times. I said nothing in the blog interview that I hadn’t said privately.

I told the blog that Lupica and Joe Valerio, the producer of “The Sports Reporters,” had become disenchanted with me because I would not join in the crusade to portray Barry Bonds as the baseball anti-Christ. I’m not a Bonds fan and don’t think all that much of his recent accomplishments. But a life spent competing in sports and writing about sports has made me uninterested in pretending that Bonds is the real villain in the steroids mess. And I have zero tolerance for when people try to censor my ability to state fair opinions.

You might read this and think that I think I’ve been treated unfairly by ESPN. I don’t.

This was inevitable. ESPN does not tolerate criticism. Sportswriters far more distinguished than yours truly — Tony Kornheiser, John Feinstein and T.J. Simers — have been banned/suspended for comments perceived to be detrimental to the World Wide Leader.

I’m sure my move from ESPN .com to AOL Sports was viewed as an act of disloyalty by some within the network.

It wasn’t. It was just the act of a guy who values his ability to think, act and speak independently more than he does seeing his face on ESPN.

holy shit........:eek:

This is good news.

Whitlock has the balls to say what he thinks.

I'm looking for several more juicy anti-ESPN articles soon.

I've always thought he was the most bias, make a case for the idiotic, dumbest writers ever. His hating on Scoop Jackson is more proof that he'd rather lie than tell the truth. In fact I get the feeling he will only down the people he hates at ESPN. And skip over the ones he still likes.

Whitlock is buds with Wojo, right?

I remember hearing the theory that Wojo used to (still does?) ply Whitlock with inside dirt on the Lions/Pistons that Wojo didn't feel comfortable writing about himself.

Can anybody expand on/confirm/refute this?

I seem to recall that Whitlock used to work for the Ann Arbor News.


EDIT: man, I love Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Whitlock

In my opinion, Whitlock is right about Scoop. I've become pretty tired of his "wanna-be thug" mentality. Scoop isn't even a very good writer.

I've always respected JW - hope to hear him on Rome sometime soon.

well, whitlock is wrong about one thing, he's about 1000x a better writer than tj simers (hack journalist for LA that pissed everyone off 2 years ago).

whitlock has been by far the best sports journalist in america for a while now.

and he's exactly right about scoop.

guts, im wondering how much you've actually read of whitlock's?

whitlock writes about race as much, if not more than scoop. but theres a huge difference. one, whitlock is intelligent. two, he writes about race because thats where his stories sometime lead him--whereas you can tell scoop sits down and says "now how can i write about race and sports in this column".

scoop has openly said he's trying to fill ralph wiley's shoes (who, in my opinion, was the best sports writer in america before his death a few years ago). wiley wrote a book called "why black people tend to shout". he was a very race conscious writer, very similar to whitlock. but i think wiley would agree with whitlock about scoop.

ps: i would be surprised and dissapointed if whitlock attacked espn like this again in a column. i would, however, like to see scoop defend himself.

guts, im wondering how much you've actually read of whitlock's
Yes his LB love is unbiased i'm guessing. :rolleyes:

His work on the sports reporters was terrible. Easily the worst ever(made me turn the channel a few times). Dont act like i'm the first person to ever think lowly of him. Google "Jason Whitlock" and hack, throw in ignorant if you want. and tell each person you come across there they havent read or seen him at work.:rolleyes:

If you like his stuff, kudos for you, i don't. But somebody's got to if he had a job in the first place. Some people even like woody hayes. Their perogative. If you think negatively of people who dont, the go fuck yourself with a spiked bat.

All in all i've read and seen(eye sore for days) quite a bit of whitlock. And yes i still think he's for the most part a biased hack. Clear enough for you?[smilie=burgerking.: [smilie=running.gif]


i would, however, like to see scoop defend himself.
For who? people who think whitlocks right in the first place like yourself? I'd be surprised if he took his bitter ass seriously. I like how the recently fired bitter guy is considered the one with clarity. If he was as intelligently upstanding as you say he wouldnt have done that piece. Harold Renyolds isnt bashing anybody he can or spilling whatever slighted beans possible to get back at espn. So i dont get where this is a classy intellectual move by Whitlock. Sounds like he's screaming for typical attention. I'm honestly hoping that Scoop doesnt sink into that and write a fire back article. atleast not directly. I hope they all igg Whitlock, it'll just show how much of a baby he's being.

Yes his LB love is unbiased i'm guessing. :rolleyes:

His work on the sports reporters was terrible. Easily the worst ever(made me turn the channel a few times). Dont act like i'm the first person to ever think lowly of him. Google "Jason Whitlock" and hack, throw in ignorant if you want. and tell each person you come across there they havent read or seen him at work.:rolleyes:

If you like his stuff, kudos for you, i don't. But somebody's got to if he had a job in the first place. Some people even like woody hayes. Their perogative. If you think negatively of people who dont, the go fuck yourself with a spiked bat.

All in all i've read and seen(eye sore for days) quite a bit of whitlock. And yes i still think he's for the most part a biased hack. Clear enough for you?[smilie=burgerking.: [smilie=running.gif]

what does woody hayes have to do with this?

i've seen very little of whitlock on tv, cuz i dont have cable, so i wont defend him there.

and though i didnt say i'd think less of someone that doesnt like whitlock, i actually would.

whitlock is probably the most insightful sports journalists in america. he also is a former athlete that gives him a far greater perspective than most run of the mill journalists.

it turns out whitlock doesnt like scoop for the same reasons i do. whitlock also was pissed off by scoop's assertions that he has something to do with ralph wiley other than skin color.

and despite what you claim, whitlock has always carried himself with dignity, even leaving espn. if you read it, he's respectful towards the CO, and pretty much everyone but scoop. but why should whitlock back down from the truthe, or his beliefs?

fact is, pg 2 has become pure shit. just 2 years ago, you could have found ralph wiley, hunter s. thompson, whitlock, bill simmons, and the daily quickie guy. some of the very best journalists in america. now wiley and thomspon are dead, whitlock and the daily quickie guy are gone, and bill simmons (an ok and sometimes great writer) is all that remains... chuck klausterman is great too, but he writes one article every blue moon it seems.



For who? people who think whitlocks right in the first place like yourself? I'd be surprised if he took his bitter ass seriously. I like how the recently fired bitter guy is considered the one with clarity. If he was as intelligently upstanding as you say he wouldnt have done that piece. Harold Renyolds isnt bashing anybody he can or spilling whatever slighted beans possible to get back at espn. So i dont get where this is a classy intellectual move by Whitlock. Sounds like he's screaming for typical attention. I'm honestly hoping that Scoop doesnt sink into that and write a fire back article. atleast not directly. I hope they all igg Whitlock, it'll just show how much of a baby he's being.

scoop should defend himself because a prominent journalist attacked him, and in probably the worst way possible. scoop probably wont though, because 1) whitlock is right, 2) scoops probably too dumb to even come up with even a bs defense. he could say 'i am who i am' but even that would be a lie.

scoop should defend himself because a prominent journalist attacked him, and in probably the worst way possible. scoop probably wont though, because 1) whitlock is right, 2) scoops probably too dumb to even come up with even a bs defense. he could say 'i am who i am' but even that would be a lie.
Thats Jason Whitlock kool aid talk if i've ever seen it. My goodness he's your "darko" of journalism. [smilie=rofl.gif] Somehow Whitlock attacks and slings mud at Scoop. and he's a bitch if he doesnt respond. See this is what exagerrated people like yourself start. I think scoop is an ok writer. Nothing spectacular by any means and I wouldnt put him up with any top journalists. But I'm stuck defending him because you jump so hard right wing haterade on him(all because your man crush homey whitlock did), and exclude any unclassy moves by Whitlock.


and despite what you claim, whitlock has always carried himself with dignity, even leaving espn. if you read it, he's respectful towards the CO, and pretty much everyone but scoop. but why should whitlock back down from the truthe, or his beliefs?
Truth? what truth? his OPINION? What world are you living in? See I find it funny that he by your words "backed down from the truth" everyday of his life at espn up until he was fired. Real classy and truthful. LMAO. get out of here with that shit Diddy. If thats how he really feels he's 3 times the bitch for waiting until he's fired and as far away from scoop as possible before he says it. Yea Whitlock is "real deal Hoyfield" to the fullest. :rolleyes:


whitlock is probably the most insightful sports journalists in america. he also is a former athlete that gives him a far greater perspective than most run of the mill journalists.
I see, so michael Irvin must be god himself. Since he was a legit athlete in his day and tom jackson was and is still in better shape than whitlock. Oh the insightful appreciation to athleticism. Look at this greatly in shape specimen of excellence.
http://www.sclphotography.com/gallery/albums/fid-color/SCL_Becky_and_Jason.sized.jpg
Stan van gundy may be in better shape unfortunately.


and though i didnt say i'd think less of someone that doesnt like whitlock, i actually would.
Well i already said my piece on that.
http://www.radargames.com/radargamesART/P-spikedbat.jpg

You are overly in love with Whitlock and worse than that, you think negatively anyone who isnt. Not much more we could discuss on this. I hope he doesnt eat the lady above, you hope that his truth destroys his sworn enemy scoop jackson. I like my odds better than yours.[smilie=burgerking.:

What the hell just happened?

I'm scared and cold, so cold.

Thats Jason Whitlock kool aid talk if i've ever seen it. My goodness he's your "darko" of journalism. [smilie=rofl.gif] Somehow Whitlock attacks and slings mud at Scoop. and he's a bitch if he doesnt respond. See this is what exagerrated people like yourself start. I think scoop is an ok writer. Nothing spectacular by any means and I wouldnt put him up with any top journalists. But I'm stuck defending him because you jump so hard right wing haterade on him(all because your man crush homey whitlock did), and exclude any unclassy moves by Whitlock.

see, i do really like whitlock's writing. this is no secret, if there was a search function, i could find posts i made on this website 2 years ago praising his articles.

and scoop will be a bitch if he doesnt respond. whitlock has a legit beef with scoop.

people, generally speaking ignorant white people, will bitch anytime 'the race card' is played. some people can intelligently incorporate race into their discourse and say things that need to be said (whitlock). other guys keep the race card right next to their press credentials, and play it whenever and whereever they can (jackson). if there werent ignorant people like scoop jackson running around ruining the names of everyone who can write a racially conscious article, i think people might be a little more receptive to what often times is an intelligent and truthful opinion.

so scoop has been accused of doing a disservice to a group he claims to represent. thats a pretty serious charge, imo. he can defend it or not, and we'll see what kind of character he has.



Truth? what truth? his OPINION? What world are you living in? See I find it funny that he by your words "backed down from the truth" everyday of his life at espn up until he was fired. Real classy and truthful. LMAO. get out of here with that shit Diddy. If thats how he really feels he's 3 times the bitch for waiting until he's fired and as far away from scoop as possible before he says it. Yea Whitlock is "real deal Hoyfield" to the fullest. :rolleyes:

the truth i was referring to was his reason for leaving espn. which was: he was fired for attacking another espn employee. its his opinion about scoop, but its truth that he was fired because of this opinion. you were saying he wasnt classy because of the way he left, but all he did was explain why he was let go.

if you read the article, whitlock claims to have repeatedly voiced his displeasure to espn about working with scoop. he's mentioned his annoyance of scoop in his articles. i always assumed this was in referrence to black people always being lumped together. glad to see it was more.

No joke, I posted this to see what kind of spew Gutz would have on it. Bettering expectations.

Ahh, entrapment at it's finest.

Gotta admit Glenn, tailor made.

Jason Whitlock on Stoney and Wojo - Part 1 (click to listen mp3) (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DETROIT-MI/WDFN-AM/saw%20with%20jason%20whitlock%20part%201.mp3)

Jason Whitlock on Stoney and Wojo - Part 2 (click to listen mp3) (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DETROIT-MI/WDFN-AM/saw%20with%20jason%20whitlock%20part%202.mp3)

Jason Whitlock on Stoney and Wojo - Part 3 (click to listen mp3) (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DETROIT-MI/WDFN-AM/saw%20with%20jason%20whitlock%20part%203.mp3)

Jason Whitlock on Stoney and Wojo - Part 4 (click to listen mp3) (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DETROIT-MI/WDFN-AM/saw%20with%20jason%20whitlock%20part%204.mp3)

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/welcome-to-real-talk-with-jason-whitlock/20060928200809990001

first aol article. looks like he's ready to move on. (not much of a read though).

scoop responds:



By Scoop Jackson
Page 2

A FEW YEARS AGO, I decided to become a sports columnist.

I had idols. People in the game I respected. Looked up to.

Only a few of them were black. Jason Whitlock was one of them.

A FEW MONTHS AGO, in a column in The Kansas City Star, columnist Jason Whitlock responded to a column I wrote here on Page 2. He had issues with the column, he had issues with me.

I wrote a column that dealt with the politics of race within sports journalism. In the column, I told a story of educating a group of young black high school and college students about the fact that they stood a better chance of making the NBA than of becoming a sportswriter in America.

As I stated in the column, my information on the subject was based not on theory or opinion, but on facts -- facts that would be validated weeks later in a study by Richard Lapchick and the University of Central Florida Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports. The study reported that only four of 305 (the number is actually five out of 305) sports editors at major newspapers in the country are black and that, of all the sports jobs at those papers, only 6.2 percent are held by blacks.

"You all have a better chance to make it to the NBA than you do doing what I do for a living." Those were my words. Exact.

To some degree, it seems my point was misinterpreted, perhaps because of the way that sentence was written. The statement as it stares at you is not about me personally -- it's about our profession of sportswriting and our role as minorities (by both race and number) in it. That the odds are so stacked against becoming a sportswriter who happens to be black that the NBA -- by the numbers! -- might be a better option.

But one that's still worth pursuing.

Apparently, though, Mr. Whitlock had a problem with the message and the messenger. In his regular column for the Star, Mr. Whitlock went after my argument, then went after me. Personally. He called my argument and point of view juvenile, flawed and stupid, put quotation marks around the word column, apparently to suggest that my work is not worthy of the status, as if I'm not a real columnist.

Then he referenced some black writers (and by implication, me) as "buffoonish," "assimilated," "unskilled," "untrained." A wild radical minority journalist that liberal white managers "love to bend down" to.

As to the topic of the column, Mr. Whitlock made an argument of his own in an attempt to explain the paucity of black sports editors. He claimed, "it's foolish to look at the raw, end-result numbers and conclude that racism is the only explanation and that jobs should just be handed to minorities in the name of diversity."

His point that young black people too often tend to lack the passion and willingness to prepare, pay dues and work their way up to become viable candidates for important jobs in sports journalism is well-taken. Unarguable. But how much passion and preparation should one expect from a generation when that generation sees only a handful of people "like them" -- people of similar race, similar backgrounds, similar cultures -- succeeding in a particular industry?

Choose one: law, medicine, real estate, education, film directing, television producing, hotel designing, interior decorating, video game developing, automobile manufacturing, farming, commercial architecture, engineering, international banking, drug trafficking (not drug dealing) … sportswriting.

There's a direct correlation between what people see as accessible to them and what they choose to do with their lives. It doesn't shape what everyone does, but it's naive to think that doesn't play a role. Unless someone sees a person doing something he can see himself doing, finding the passion and work ethic necessary to pursue that career never manifests.

As black people, we often must dream our way through bars that won't bend. That's our existence. Not just mine.

But Mr. Whitlock paraphrased what I wrote as bragging. In no way was it ever about me. It was, and still is, about us, all of us -- Mr. Whitlock included -- who happen to be of color writing about sports for a major newspaper, magazine or Web site. The point I was trying to get across is that there aren't many African-Americans who have gotten the chance to do what we do. That truth doesn't change if it comes from me, Michael Wilbon, Phil Taylor, David Dupree, Jemele Hill or Khalid Salaam. That's just the nature of the game we're in: There simply are more black pro basketball players than there are blacks collecting checks from sports departments at major newspapers, magazines and Web sites in this country.

It's a fact that I always point out to students who want to become sports journalists, a fact that I urge them not to fall victim to. I encourage them to make Mr. Whitlock one of their heroes and inspirations. So when they see him on TV or in the paper or on the Internet, they should realize and recognize that this dude is doing it, that "I have a better chance," that someone like him should be a motivator.

But somehow in my column on the topic, that point got lost -- at least to one reader, and probably more. I simply think the words were read wrong, maybe because of the way I presented them, which is something I'll take responsibility for. But the facts I will stand on, and will continue to use to encourage others to chase this dream that "we" have partially made come true for ourselves and hopefully use to open opportunities for others.

Even the next Jason Whitlock.

A FEW WEEKS AGO in a Web interview (and in another column in the Star), Mr. Whitlock furthered his issues with what I'd written. This time, he furthered his concerns to include the way I write and the way he views me as a person.

Apparently still bothered by something, he decided to stop writing his column for ESPN.com, which ended our time as colleagues. In the interview, he blasted me (along with some other ESPN people). But his attack on me got personal.

Outside of calling me out of my name -- implying I am part of the "Ignorant 5" percent ("the new KKK"), calling me "an insult to black intelligence," a "clown," saying he went to "ESPN executives countless times" because of problems he has with my writing, saying because of me he wasn't comfortable with "his place in the batting order" as a columnist on ESPN.com, saying that he only reads my writing "when he wants to purge" -- he described my writing as "bojangling."

I really don't know what's eating Mr. Whitlock, because for all his issues with me and my style, he has never done the honorable thing, which is to call me so we can discuss it man-to-man. Even when we were sitting together at a table in a Dallas hotel lobby during the NBA Finals in June watching a World Cup game with Dan Le Batard, dude never said anything. Nothing. Even when invited by the producers of "Quite Frankly" to discuss the issue -- his issue with me -- in July, he refused.

Perhaps if he had done that, said something to me, pulled me to the side and said, "Brah, I don't like you, here's why … " we'd have no problem now. But he chose to go public, get personal, say things in print that he wouldn't to my face. So let me say this, right here and right now: Who I am, what I write and how I write it is not something I'll ever have to explain or apologize for to anyone! I speak and write the truth as I see it in a language and style that people I care about and respect understand.

Just like the "1.3 Percent Doctrine" column, I write about controversial things. I write about things that often go unwritten by the general sports media, often overlooked by other writers. I see angles in stories that are unconventional, I take those angles. Inside of these angles, I write unapologetically, I tell stories differently. I write a different kind of "column." I take stands.

But what I stand for and what I will stand are sometimes two different things. I will tolerate someone who has a problem with the way I write and my style. I will tolerate someone who disagrees with my opinion. I'll even go so far as to tolerate someone trying to publicly (or privately) discredit me as a writer. Those things I will stand.

But what I will not stand is someone, anyone, crossing the line from professional criticism to disrespect. In the words of Laurence Fishburne in "The Cotton Club": I dance for no one.

Kobe and Shaq? Donovan and T.O.? Tupac and Biggie? Never that. This is one sportswriter who simply doesn't like another sportswriter and stepped outside the professional boundaries to express that.

Have I called Jason Whitlock? Yes. Once. Did he answer or respond? No.

It's done. I'm not going to get in the crab barrel with him. I'll even go so far as to say this: He's entitled to his opinion. I'll honor that. But just because someone doesn't "feel" where you are coming from or know where you came from doesn't give that person the right to disrespect you. In that respect, Jason Whitlock went too far.

All because he doesn't like or understand or "get" the words I type.

Words that I will never apologize for. Words that define who I am.

A FEW DAYS AGO, I read past what Jason Whitlock said about me and read into what he was saying. He talked of a new Civil Rights Movement. We need one. Especially in sports.

In the arena of sports journalism, it would mean the galvanizing of young black minds and young black talent and letting them know there is a place in this game for them to contribute, room for some to shine.

It would mean all of us, black sportswriters, columnists and editors, walking into high school classrooms and onto college campuses and telling what we feel is the truth. The truth about the work we put in, the truth about the work they must put in.

We must give them the raw data. Then tell them that despite the odds and options, their chances are great because none of us stands before them alone.

Because in this game, only because there are so few of us, it is necessary for us to stand together, have each others' backs, through thick and thin skin, whether we like one another or not.

Martin might not have liked Malcolm who might not have liked Stokley who might not have liked Adam C. who might not have liked Bayard. But you rarely heard about it. Not publicly. They understood that the most effective component of a movement is solidarity. They kept the intra-racial hate internal. They kept their eyes on the prize.

So the next time I enter a classroom and explain to those in front of me the truths about being a sportswriter, a black sportswriter, I'm going to tell them which folks they need to hold in high regard and whose paths they need to follow. I'm going to tell them of those I look up to.

Ralph Wiley, William C. Rhoden, Sonja Steptoe, Roscoe Nance, Stephen A. Smith and yes, Jason Whitlock.

Because, regardless of how I personally feel about another brotha, I understand that the first step in creating a Civil Rights Movement is being civil.

I really don't know what's eating Mr. Whitlock, because for all his issues with me and my style, he has never done the honorable thing, which is to call me so we can discuss it man-to-man. Even when we were sitting together at a table in a Dallas hotel lobby during the NBA Finals in June watching a World Cup game with Dan Le Batard, dude never said anything. Nothing. Even when invited by the producers of "Quite Frankly" to discuss the issue -- his issue with me -- in July, he refused.

scoops alot like you, you can tell he's not too bright, but its hard to say if he's intentionally avoiding the issue or if he just plain doesnt get it.

this has nothing to do with civility. scoop gets a +1 for taking the moral highroad, but thats about it.

scoops alot like you, you can tell he's not too bright, but its hard to say if he's intentionally avoiding the issue or if he just plain doesnt get it.
I just quoted him and you couldn't take it...LOL

Sucking whitlock's dick in public still? Be careful how freely you throw around the "not too bright" talk. Being that you judge players by whether they tip baggage handlers and that you judge people based on whether they suck whitlock's dick as hard as you do.


this has nothing to do with civility. scoop gets a +1 for taking the moral highroad, but thats about it.
Yea, taking the low road like whitlock isnt a big deal and a non issue in calling someone out from afar.:rolleyes: My original point was that he's a hypocrite to talk shit rather than approach Scoop man to man. You're trying to make that a non-issue because you know its shitty on Whitlock part(which is what I said from the jump). But its a big part of why Whitlock is a punk. He proudly claims to self righteously take the high road vs scoop in his articles. On top of that you suck him off the whole way. So now he takes the low road and scoop takes the high road. yet its not an issue now? Funny, kinda like you legitimately getting mad about a meaningless darko debates as if this isn't just a forum on the internet.

Oddly enough I already said my say on this and quoted Scoop because he made that point himself. Whitlock cant say it to his face, then he shouldnt print it or say it at all. Unlike you thats not unreasonable. Next time you want to go for the jugular at me. Make sure you don't have Whitlock's sweaty testicles rubbing your gums. As far as I'm concerned, neither guy was worth your pussy fit. which is why you're a nutless pussy. good night. This is the last we speak on this. So do like you did before and get all your cheap shots in while i'm moving on. [smilie=running.gif] [smilie=burgerking.:

hey visitors, you should register here

What trash can is Whitlock working out of these days?

Fox Sports

What a boring thread. I immediately took a nap after reading through it.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/milkmandantx/JFatlock.jpg

I think he's lost it.

http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/10014252/Erin-Andrews-video-scandal:-It&

Was going to post the Whitlock article here, but I spent a good 10-12 minutes on it and barely made a dent, it's that long, so it didn't feel right linking it here.

Also this thread has over 35,000 views and only 27 posts.

Fired again, this time from his "black Grantland" before it even launched.

Thanks, Deadspin, lol.