Posted on 05/02/2016 3:10:45 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Curt Schilling was recently fired by ESPN in large part because of his frequent social-media activity, specifically controversial memes and comments shared by the former pitcher. So when reports circulated online that ESPN had cut Schilling’s memorable “bloody sock” performance in the 2004 ALCS from its Sunday airing of a “30 for 30″ documentary about that Red Sox-Yankees showdown, it was no surprise to see him weigh in quickly, and strongly.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Documentary is concerning the 2004 ALCS only, not the players lives.
“Since the documentary is regarding the 2004 ALCS, why would it?”
Documentaries can be wide ranging or very limited, but neither Schilling or I have editorial control over ESPN’s 30 for 30.
The makers of the documentary could have covered the allegedly bloody sock or not, and they could have covered his dealings with Rhode Island or not.
That decision is up to the producers and we all have the choice not to watch.
My takeaway from that Forbes article is that the Government (State or Fed) is too big and making tax deals that they have no right to be making. And this is because they've designed a Tax Code that gives the Government Royals power as they can grant favors with various arcane tax breaks.
So Schilling apparently fleeced the Rhode Island tax overlords.
Boo-hoo.
The real crime is that we don't have a simple tax code without any tax breaks.
ESPN........hmmmm...........is that that channel that plays in airport bars around the world.......and always on mute?
You haven’t answered the question. Why do you believe in a Soviet style purging of a previously filmed and aired performance based on a comment that rejects transsexualism?
Why would a documentary concerning the 2004 ALCS omit a crucial component as Game 6 of the ALCS?
That's like omitting Bill Buckner concerning a documentary about the 1986 World Series.
The makers of the documentary could have covered the allegedly bloody sock or not, and they could have covered his dealings with Rhode Island or not.
Again, why would a documentary cover his dealings if the topic is about the 2004 ALCS. Is the documentary about Schilling himself?
That decision is up to the producers and we all have the choice not to watch.
Watching it is irrelevant. The question is why his mentions were omitted considering Game 6 was crucial in the 2004 ALCS.
Check out his posting history.
LOL, I didn’t feel the need to check the posting history! I discern his/her/its proclivities immediately, which is why I am imploring him/her/it to engage in discourse and explain his/her/its support of something any conservative abhors, the rewriting or suppression of history because they disagree with someone over something.
It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to imagine old Timpanganos1 would be fully in favor of tearing down all Confederate Civil War memorials, banning the Confederate flag, and destruction of all “Dukes of Hazzard” videos out there in the bargain.
Because he/she/it seems completely onboard with ESPN deciding not to air a completely sports-related video because he posted what is a truthful personal commentary about the ramifications of allowing people who “say” they are female enter a bathroom with young girls inside.
Your argument is thoroughly specious. Documentaries on sporting events are not about players’ TAX filings.
Claiming latitude in editorial content stretches the boundaries of common sense. Have you ever worked in television production? The last thing on the mind of a sportswriter covering an event is personal taxes. Maybe when writing about contact negotiations, but NOT on a game or series.
Whatever axe you have to grind, feel free to grind it, but you’ll have to find a more convincing method of persuasion.
Your argument is thoroughly specious. Documentaries on sporting events are not about players’ TAX filings.
Claiming latitude in editorial content stretches the boundaries of common sense. Have you ever worked in television production? The last thing on the mind of a sportswriter covering an event is personal taxes. Maybe when writing about contact negotiations, but NOT on a game or series.
Whatever axe you have to grind, feel free to grind it, but you’ll have to find a more convincing method of persuasion.
I have no insight into the minds or motivations of the 30 for 30 producers nor do I have any editorial control on the documentary in question and there does not appear to be any Soviet style purging in the making of the documentary.
You’re correct. That’s all the more reason why they have to be propagandized to. They’re a captive audience anyway so...
Of course, to you there likely would not seem to be any Leftist purges of history going on, leftists would see it as completely justified and not a purge, as you apparently do, and likely for the same reasons.
Why is it that you see it as justified?
Correct. You have no insight. You obviously have never worked in the business.
I see nothing political about an allegedly bloody sock.
And being that an ESPN episode of 30 for 30 is not a vital nor even relevant historical document or production, the a absence of Schilling’s sock is not a purge of history.
Of course you wouldn’t see anything wrong. Odd, they didn’t excise anything else. In your simplistic liberal brain, what do you think is going on?
What? You think it is a simple coinincidence?
Of course you don’t. You know full well what is going on, but you are too much of a coward to be truthful, because that would expose you for what you are.
But I wouldn’t worry, if I were you. Everyone can already see full well what you are.
ESPN - the successor’s to Stalin’s revised Soviet history program.
You’re in. Now you’re out. No photos, no nothing. Stalin and ESPN rule!
It’s a editorial decision by the producers of 30 for 30, not a decision by Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court. Bloody sock or not, it will not be detrimental to the country.
Now if there are people that object to the sock not being in the documentary, they are free to produce a documentary that includes the bloody sock incident.
Was it in the show before?
He’s a liberal turd. Don’t even bother. His rationale (and I will explain it, because he is too much of a dishonest POS to have honest discourse. What he/she/it is doing on this forum, I don’t know, because it isn’t to engage in discourse. The thing is a troll.)
He/she/it knows full well what is going on, but the lame explanation from the liberal troll is that it doesn’t affect anything “big” then it isn’t worth worrying about.
He doesn’t have a problem with liberal censorship because he is a liberal as well, just joined up a few months back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.