The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Without mentioning them by name...

In [URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/23/AR2005102301274.html]Mike Wise's column[/URL], he wrote the following (emphasis mine):
[QUOTE= Mike Wise - Washington Post]Some of us were worse than wrong. Columns, call-in shows and fan Web sites were downright nasty. [B]One extremist Web[/B] thread took on Gibbs's undying faith in Brunell:

"If Joe Gibbs starts Mark Brunell next Sunday, it will confirm what I have thought since the day we signed the inept quarterback. . . . One fervent Christian favoring another fervent Christian," a post written a year ago read. "Time to break the loyalty, Joe. This isn't church, it's football, and Mark Brunell is the biggest mistake you ever made."
[/QUOTE]

The quoted post can be viewed [URL=http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76740]here[/URL].

I wonder if it's going to be WaPo policy to dig up old posts at the now-team-owned fansite to make said site look foolish. Looks like the Post-Skins feud is still out there.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

what's sad is...that post was written over a year ago. if anything, Mike Wise should have written about it last year. It's definitely short sided and childish to bring this up now.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

There were probably similar assanine posts here as well last year.

It's a shame that so many 'fans' gave up so quickly on Gibbs.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]There were probably similar assanine posts here as well last year.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of my point. I'm not here to defend Extreme, but calling out year-old message board posts is piss-poor journalism. It's like a low blow at message boards in general.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

But BrudLee, they're THE official message board. ;)

Seriously though, I completely agree. Old message board posts as support for your argument?! Damn.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

(maybe this will make the Post ;))
Mike Wise is a prick, and will never be held in the same light as TK.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Yeah kinda comes with the territory. Being the Skins message board is going to make you a target.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

they are jealous because they are not top dog anymore, that and the fact that their sloppy and lazy habits have been shown for what they are. they are not used to be held to the fire.Journalism and reporting have really gone down hill over the last decade or so.i have little or no trust in any of them

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I think it's kind of sad to take your personal vendetta against a FREAKIN' sports team out in the paper. I don't see how people, Skins fans or not, would continue to tolerate it. I mean it's the same ol' shit every week.

"Skins did this to us! Waaaaaaaaaaah!"

Get over it. The first part of healing is forgiveness. You'd THINK that Post readers would rather read something positive or objective for a change.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

you can thank the downward spiral of journalism to the 24/7 news world we live in. too many writers trying to jump the gun, because a matter of moments can mean the difference of several million hits to said story. and until some sort of check system is put in place, it'll continue to go down.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I thought the article was good. I don't really see it as poor journalism. If you read the article, its contrasting the Mark Brunell of last year (and the perception of him at the time), to this year's Mark Brunell.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I just think that the comment they quoted had too much agenda behind it. It's a little controversial to be putting in a large paper. When you put something like that in there, it starts stirring up controversy.

Now for the impressional people that read the Post, whenever the Skins sign someone they'll be like "Hmmm, wonder if it's because he's a Christian."

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]I just think that the comment they quoted had too much agenda behind it. It's a little controversial to be putting in a large paper. When you put something like that in there, it starts stirring up controversy.

Now for the impressional people that read the Post, whenever the Skins sign someone they'll be like "Hmmm, wonder if it's because he's a Christian."[/QUOTE]
But it shows just how low Brunell was last year, as opposed to this year. He's using it for contrast, not controversy. I believe that if he used it in a story *last* year, it would have been more controversial, but to use it this year is kinda like saying "hey, moron, look where he (and Gibbs) is now".

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Oh I completely agree with comparing. Just the comment out of the THOUSANDS there were to choose from was a little bit in bad taste in my opinion.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I hope the Post doesn't decide to dig up anything I wrote about Mark Brunell

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

For those who might be interested, this thread contains my Letter to the Editor pursuant to Mr. Wise's first column where he used this cheap stunt, as well as some comments from the poster who was quoted:

[url]http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76860&highlight=editor[/url]

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]There were probably similar assanine posts here as well last year.

It's a shame that so many 'fans' gave up so quickly on Gibbs.[/QUOTE]

Whats also a shame is some of them probably had the "Gibbs is Back" or "In Gibbs We Trust" T-shirts and signs....

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

good letter in response om.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

The war has only just started. Sad....

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

If Mike Wise can make these kinds of mistakes and get paid for it by the Washington Post no less, maybe I should apply. To quote a fansite is cheap and to not read the date of the post is even worse than bush league journalism. I know we've got alot of diehard fans here who know our facts, but is it too much to ask for a writer for the Washington Post to have a little more football street cred or at the very least a journalistic, fact checking approach? What has this world come too? The end of print media, coming soon!!!

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=-Om-]For those who might be interested, this thread contains my Letter to the Editor pursuant to Mr. Wise's first column where he used this cheap stunt, as well as some comments from the poster who was quoted:

[url]http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76860&highlight=editor[/url][/QUOTE]
Good response in defense of not only your board, but message boards in general.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=-Om-]For those who might be interested, this thread contains my Letter to the Editor pursuant to Mr. Wise's first column where he used this cheap stunt, as well as some comments from the poster who was quoted:

[url="http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76860&highlight=editor"]http://extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76860&highlight=editor[/url][/QUOTE] For the life of me I just do not understand why Extreme Mods constantly are checking and posting on this site. You would think with there 100,000 members and there deal with the Skins that they have enough to do over there. Checking all the Arrington post and making sure all are being good little boys and girls. But now they come over here to. I post over there sometimes but just when I see a thread that peaks my interest. But do they sit in front of the computer 24/7?

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=Luxorreb]If Mike Wise can make these kinds of mistakes and get paid for it by the Washington Post no less, maybe I should apply. To quote a fansite is cheap and to not read the date of the post is even worse than bush league journalism. I know we've got alot of diehard fans here who know our facts, but is it too much to ask for a writer for the Washington Post to have a little more football street cred or at the very least a journalistic, fact checking approach? What has this world come too? The end of print media, coming soon!!![/QUOTE]
Wise never said this was a recent quote. In fact, if you read the article, it's easy to see that it was said last year.

Sneet is a moron for saying it and a coward for blaming the WP for printing it.

It's probably not in ExtremeSkins best interest to get into a war with the Post. They (ES) will lose.

ExtremeSkins should take care of business at home before trying to 'take on the world'. It doesn't seem like they're really adjusting to being in the public eye very well.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=CRT3]For the life of me I just do not understand why Extreme Mods constantly are checking and posting on this site. You would think with there 100,000 members and there deal with the Skins that they have enough to do over there. Checking all the Arrington post and making sure all are being good little boys and girls. But now they come over here to. I post over there sometimes but just when I see a thread that peaks my interest. But do they sit in front of the computer 24/7?[/QUOTE]

Do we have a potential answer for question #3 here??

:Smoker:

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Do we have a potential answer for question #3 here??

:Smoker:[/QUOTE]

Sorry. Was away from the computer for a while. :)

Didn't get to see CT's latest hypocrisy. How many times is it you've shown up on ES since the merger for the sole purpose of poking a stick at us, CT? I've lost track.

As to why we'd check here ... because we're not provincial. And because we're fans of the team. We follow trends and discussion on all manner of Redskins boards (and even some of other teams, believe it or not) to keep abreast of what's happening.

Not quite sure why that would be a foreign concept to anyone.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=-Om-]Sorry. Was away from the computer for a while. :)

Didn't get to see CT's latest hypocrisy. How many times is it you've shown up on ES since the merger for the sole purpose of poking a stick at us, CT? I've lost track.

As to why we'd check here ... because we're not provincial. And because we're fans of the team. We follow trends and discussion on all manner of Redskins boards (and even some of other teams, believe it or not) to keep abreast of what's happening.

Not quite sure why that would be a foreign concept to anyone.[/QUOTE]
How come all of you ES guys have just recently joined TWP then?

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]How come all of you ES guys have just recently joined TWP then?[/QUOTE]

I don't speak for "all the ES guys," but I can speak for me. I've been a member of several Redskins boards for a long time, and I'm pretty sure I was a member here as well long before the merge, and long before my current account was activated. At some point along the way, I apparently managed to lose track of my original TWP account, and so registered again when the merger thing exploded and I felt compelled to at least TRY to dispell some of the more egregious misrepresentations I saw.

Still kinda hoping to do that to the extent possible .. though the level of animus I'm finding most of the time has me wondering if it's not like trying to play horse-whisperer to a hungry mako.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I saw the article, and while the quote was a little extreme (blatant pun intended) the article was okay. Honestly, it was a bit redundant... there's no one reading his article that's not well aware that there was a bit of contraversey revolving around the decision to start brunell. It was just mid-week filler, when there's nothing to report on, so he thought he'd stir things up with a radical point of view. I honestly wouldn't have responded to it, (if I were you OM) because in doing so, you're justifying something you shouldn't.

Dont get me wrong, if you felt compelled to reply, then you did it with tact, and it was well written, which is more than I can say for the writings of some of your staff, but somtimes it's better to turn a blind's eye, and take the publicity any way it comes.

Whatever numbskull posted that is more than entitled to his opinion and thats why there are message boards... So that morons like you and me can voice our opinions and views without having a degree in journalism and a job with the post.

The article about the Giants-Skins history that was in the post yesterday was much better reading material, anyway.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

I'm sure I don't speak for everyone here, but I do agree that criticism simply from being from ES is unwarranted. I'm not even going to speak to the camp creditial story because I definitely don't know any of the details on that subject.

I do ask that unless you know the real story, don't criticize other people just because they're from another site. We're all part of one big family: The Redskins family.

Now if you know the story behind the credentials fiasco then bombs away, but don't chastise someone just because they choose to visit our board now and then. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who frequents all three other Skins sites.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

Visiting is fine and dandy, but usually when they show up the bees start buzzing. If they want to come around as fans, fine, post as a fan, not as ES reps who seemingly only want to argue (ie"dispell egregious misrepresentations").

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=cpayne5]Visiting is fine and dandy, but usually when they show up the bees start buzzing. If they want to come around as fans, fine, post as a fan, not as ES reps who seemingly only want to argue (ie"dispell egregious misrepresentations").[/QUOTE]

I understand the point you're making.

You don't see them posting here unless their site is somehow involved in the discussion.

I post on several boards including ES, but as a fan, not just when The Warpath's name is involved.

I guess they feel the need to put out fires right now. I really don't think it's necessary since people are going to feel one way or another regardless. Obviously they feel different.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=canthetuna]I saw the article, and while the quote was a little extreme (blatant pun intended) the article was okay. Honestly, it was a bit redundant... there's no one reading his article that's not well aware that there was a bit of contraversey revolving around the decision to start brunell. It was just mid-week filler, when there's nothing to report on, so he thought he'd stir things up with a radical point of view. I honestly wouldn't have responded to it, (if I were you OM) because in doing so, you're justifying something you shouldn't.

Dont get me wrong, if you felt compelled to reply, then you did it with tact, and it was well written, which is more than I can say for the writings of some of your staff, but somtimes it's better to turn a blind's eye, and take the publicity any way it comes.

Whatever numbskull posted that is more than entitled to his opinion and thats why there are message boards... So that morons like you and me can voice our opinions and views without having a degree in journalism and a job with the post.

The article about the Giants-Skins history that was in the post yesterday was much better reading material, anyway.[/QUOTE]

It wasn't about "publicity" from my perspective. As I noted later in that thread, I was responding emotionally to what I thought was a very poorly conceived and misrepresentative perspective on message board culture. Was it a waste of time? Probably ... although I'm about 99% Wise read it. And at least it made ME feel better. :)

Also, I was glad that the guy who posted the initial comments Wise used spoke up in that thread. It thought he handled with all the class and objectivity that Wise lacked.

Anyway. Enough of my thoughts on this old news.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

[QUOTE=-Om-]
Didn't get to see CT's latest hypocrisy. How many times is it you've shown up on ES since the merger for the sole purpose of poking a stick at us, CT? I've lost track.

As to why we'd check here ... because we're not provincial. And because we're fans of the team. We follow trends and discussion on all manner of Redskins boards (and even some of other teams, believe it or not) to keep abreast of what's happening.

Not quite sure why that would be a foreign concept to anyone.[/QUOTE] Low blow, as all I did was post a question as to why you guys would surf here when you have so much to do over at Extreme. Please go read all of my post on your site, as they are not all poking a jab or questionning the reason as to join forces with the Skins. You say you have lost track but as you guys constantly say over on your site "Use the Search tool". If you used it you would apparently be able to keep track.

And I guess based on your response what would you be trying to keep abreast of? You guys have complete access to the Skins and the amount of fans spewing off about this and that, what more could you possibly get. Seems you are just really monitoring what might be said about Extreme, which is quite pointless since most of the discussion around here revolves around the games, and other teams. One of the items I did bring up a few weeks back was when the Redskins clearly crossed the line in attacking the post via the message board. They have not otherwise pointed the readers to the message board other then when a article is written or a chat is open. They clearly pointed people to a thread that involved their own interest. This is not what you guys had originally said would happen with your site. It was stated that the Skins would never use the site to their own advantage. Maybe I misunderstood. But all I have done on some of the post over there is point this out and some have answered with "I see your point" and some have answered with "you are trying to stir the pot". I just am trying to understand the actuall motives of Karl Swanson and Dan Synder as thier practices in the past have been questionable. Apparently the way that Karl has handled our good friend Joe should really be questioned. He is a fan and a reporter and should at least be treated with respect. You have to admit he was treated rather poorly and we all hope that you guys would back him up and maybe restore his privlidges for the Warpaths Self Serving needs and wants.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

too much ranting :(

i think the forums are public and anyone is free to look through them as such... maybe they're checking for critiques on their articles or see what other sites think about current issues.

seems they only feel compelled to respond when PR issues pop up, but i don't think its outside their rights to do so. I don't think any article with even a passive mention of ES deserves to always devolve into an off-topic flamefest though, which seem to be where this is heading.

Re: The Washington Post backhands Extremeskins.com
 

It was a reach to connect his varied early morning thoughts.
Article read well but his connections and theme were like weed smoking synapses misfiring. It fit and it was a real reach to make it fit, not specifically clarifying the date of the post. Worked for him I guess, he's getting paid writing his jargon and we're getting paid for something else while writing about his jargon. Maybe we all do come out on top! HAHAHHAHA.