Didn't mention a time slot, but The Fan's director of programming did confirm it would air on 1460, not 97.1.
The email we received from ESPN said 97.1. Guess we'll find out on Monday.
You can draw your own conclusion, but I think he meant the latter.
He's implying that Oyster's email was creatively edited.
Here's the full text: “I would like to have a discussion with you though, and I am honestly surprised it took this long to get to this point, lord knows I have been trying. You are obviously a patient parent and husband.”
Oyster never once emailed me or the site, or picked up the phone to try to have this discussion he wanted so badly to have. How else would you read that line besides he acted out to get noticed?
Your attitude towards him was exactly why he did what he did. If you knew him you would understand that he likes to light a match and run. So that's what he did.
So it's my fault that Oyster was petulant and stirred shit up? Got it.
He's a grown-ass man who started drama on a website. Like old enough to have grandkids type man. Let that sink in for a second.
I don't like to comment publicly on things like this but Oyster knew what he was doing. His email to the site after he was banned included:
"I am honestly surprised it took this long to get to this point, lord knows I have been trying."
On top of that, we refunded his full $85 even though he was nine months into his 12W membership.
My conscious is clean and I hope you understand why I don't have a lot of patience for the Oyster wakes held around here from time to time. Martyr the guy all you want, but it's misplaced.
Yes, we deleted comments saying the link wasn't working once the link started working so as not to cause confusion. Some other links in children comments were collateral damage. We do have a relationship with Fanatics, but we've never deleted links from other sources because of that before and that wasn't the case today, which is why some links to other sources survived.
Hell yeah you do.
You can't click that play button without being a Twitter user? I honestly didn't know that was set up like that, but the NFL won't even allow us to embed the videos directly as we have to embed the tweet itself, so who knows.
Thanks. We will take a look.
EDIT: These have been nuked. Thanks for pointing them out.
Yeah it's not great. Look, readers are free to disagree with us or question things we do. We are not perfect. But there's a line between doing that as an adult and being an a-hole.
It may be time for another commenter purge. If some of the things we do make you so angry that you can't manage impulse control, then perhaps 11W isn't the right site for you.
Sure. In the 10-15 minutes between when that piece is published on another site, we ingest it word for word, run it through our editing pipeline so it's reviewed, then make sure we add the exact same images just to excite people like you.
What a ridiculous assertion.
I'll take that bet.
Maybe down the road. We're kind of just treating things as a loose confederation of buds right now.
The next time you get one of those, please pass it along to us because it should be impossible. In fact, Google is constantly sending us notifications to allow ads from sensitive categories like that and we don't do it.
We leave a lot of money on the table because we try not to be a trash site with sketchy and obtrusive ads.
Here's a recent notification we received from them:
Hove is actually a moderator. :/
Yeah, the off-topic stuff is really annoying, too.
It can look like a confusing policy but here's really what's at play. If we, or commenters, post anything sexually suggestive or explicit, Google sends us a warning saying we have to remove it or they will kick us out of their ad network.
The stuff you are seeing is under article ads from another network and Google does not see those because they are rendered on the client, so it's hard for their crawler to see them.
I don't love some of the more risqué ads, either, and when we become aware of them, we move to have them blocked so as not to promote a policy of double standards.
It's really as simple as that. It's not like we are seeing those ads and saying, "Yeah, show these! They will really taunt the community!"
The former. Let's go to Wikipedia for the call:
It is common in online conversation among some Internet users to use an XML closing tag: </sarcasm>. The tag is often written only after the sarcasm so as to momentarily trick the reader before admitting the joke. Over time, it has evolved to lose the angle brackets (/sarcasm) and has subsequently been shortened to /s.
To be fair, it's so much easier to perceive IRL than written online sometimes.
I generally agree. But if people are going to insist on marking up their sarcasm, let's at least use something that's in use across the web.
I see your (and Kyle's) point, but man, college basketball is damn near unwatchable. Gino nailed it when he said the women's game was more fluid and fun to watch. There are just too many sets, too much over-coaching in college hoops. Wow, look at that, a 32-24 halftime score!
Let the kids run the court and play.