I'm not myopic in reference to my opinion on McGinn. Has he taken liberties before or even here? Perhaps. However, he is a well respected award winning journalist. You just use a Jerry Sandusky analogy? The lady doth protest too much.

Bob isn't just respected locally but nationally. His contacts among beat guys is legendary. You diminish him for what reason? Scholarly things that you can't possibly know but doesn't stop you from speculating and further libeling him?

Show me all the Weston Hodkiewicz critical pieces. Had he done what you wrongly allege, again, he would've been disqualified from employment at Packers.com the most feel good place on the internet! If you want to rip something based on "scholarly" criteria start and end there.

---

"The lady doth protest too much."

Heck of an admission by you.

You no doubt realize the "lady" in Hamlet [Queen Gertrude] was speaking of her self in the third person. 😂 😂 😂 What a nimrod! 😂 😂 😂 and yes Queen Uffda, I do believe your over the top protests are a sign of your consciousness of guilt concerning your lack of sincerity in your arguments.

Just because he calls it as he sees it doesn't mean he's right. McGinn's shtick is to be a contrarian. Always has been. I agree with him on some things, but the negative spin he puts on everything gets wearisome after awhile.

---

So, you'd be okay with Tom Braatz or Mike Sherman as GM?

---

Ha ha, Z. That wasn't his point but I get yours. Hope against hope that we don't have to deal with Buddy Ball.

I like these old threads being back. Some say every single thing Bob reports is a lie. I think we can see what agendas are in play.

Bob is a treasure. The only non puff and fluff. Journalists are a dying breed for a reason. You think Patriots nation is taking well that piece this AM? It's upsetting so it has to be false. See yourselves in some of their reactions. We'd all be better for it.

Starting to think someone here works in Packers PR.

---

Ouch!!!
Point taken, but if I thought it would go in the direction it's going I would have said not Ball.😁

THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARSHIP AND HONESTY [Yea HONESTY] ARE REQUIRED:

FACT: According to McGinn multiple “friends” of Wolf and a “close friend” of Ted spoke to McGinn in a way that puts their “friend” in a negative light..

CONCLUSION: McGinn is a liar about these “sources” being “friends” and “close friends.”

ARGUMENT: A friend would NEVER say negative things about another friend to a reporter, let alone a known negative nelly like McGinn. These friends would understand that their published negative comments would bring public embarrassment to their friend AND THE FRIEND’s FAMILY and quite possibly harm that friend’s current or future employment prospects.

Now address my argument with SCHOLARSHIP or STFU.

[You spouted your opinion that McGinn has won awards and is negative on Packers, so he’s great and would never outright lie so to rehash this is boring and unnecessary. Address this argument or don’t comment on it at all]

I would direct you to a topic I posted that isn't getting any action, not surprisingly.

Why is it everytime Bob writes an article that isn't flattering you dogmatically claim it's 100% false? You have as much proof that I do that it's true, that it's false. Yet, you go off half cocked...every single time, hollering it's all a lie? What are you trying to defend? It isn't the truth you care so much about, so what is it?

You read my topic and answer why every single time Bob posts something you deem unflattering it's always. LIES! 100% FALSE. FABRICATION, etc. That is your pattern. Believe the fluff and decry the veggies. Eat your vegetables...they're good for you. Everyone likes the guy serving pie...but you need to eat your veggies or you're going to be one unhealthy individual. Profound. I hope it resonates.

EDIT: Scholarship? You predicate your argument on "a friend would never..." Oh, your issue is with the the word, not what Bob reported? We've all had friends and been friends with someone who has said bad things about their "friend". I've found out hurtful things said by friends and I've said a share of my own. You can argue in your world, I guess, that a true friend would never do such a thing as that's what a friend denotes, someone who would never say anything bad.

Next we have to define what is negative or bad...Is it bad or negative to tell someone you were concerned about your friend who seemed to be suffering dementia, was foggy, couldn't focus, etc? What is so horrible about that. When I was very sick, I had people talking about me all over the place. I was hot news...Oh, my...he has "x" wrong with him. Oh, no. That is caring and concern not negative. You have weird perceptions of what is considered bad form between friends. I expect my friends to tell me the truth..and some do...some don't. I appreciate the ones who will tell me unpopular things. I also appreciate the ones with hearts of gold who would never say anything bad about me and would do anything for me. Life isn't perfect nor are me you or anyone else. We all talk out of school from time to time and it's a bad quality within us all. Shoot, Kevin doesn't even want us talking about health. I see no issue whatsoever...Am I mean and him not? No. Just different perspectives. Ultimately, your sensibilities were offended, not the truth. However, you framed it as lies when it isn't lies but "could" be considered bad form.

Can you answer me now? What is it you're trying to protect? You seem to have a heavier dose of organizational love than most. You will rip Aaron Rodgers but you've time and time and time again defended 1265 like it's your child. Why? What is your connection there? Will you answer? I don't think so but it's clear you either have some legit connection or you have some very weird quirk where you feel overly protective of the mother ship and I'd just like to know...why?

---

The same reverse question can be asked about you, why is that you think every pro-Packers article is 100% false and every McGinn article 100% true? ... because you're lack objectivity and just as biased as the people you're complaining about.

Fact is, that (probably) none of them are 90% right or 90% wrong... the truth normally is someone in the middle about people keep going to the extremes.

---

The topic was addressed! It was expressed that if Wolf is whining that GB is enforcing the CONTRACT between them; then Wolf is an idiot and patently unworthy.

But, I don’t think Wolf is an idiot. And I’m not a McGinn sycophant lemming; fawning over him like a 14yo 1960’s schoolgirl Beatles’ fan that shrill screams, shakes to the point of fainting.

The argument is about McGinn purposefully misrepresenting the identification of a SOURCE; not the use of a word over content. Such misrepresentations prove his article was written in bad faith. McGinn engages in misrepresentations because he knows his story cannot be supported with an honest representation of the truth. This disqualifies the article from credibility; well to any HONEST and rational person it does.

The counterargument despicably employed a strawman to frame my scholarly argument as concerning “bad form between friends.” Though it ceases to be between friends, when one party talks to McGinn. Right?

Lastly, the counter acknowledges that revealing private info amongst friends is "bad form;" but failed to address how egregious it would be to give this info to a reporter hostile to your friend. Google “Bob MCGinn” and “Friend” and you‘ll see McGinn identified “friends” as sources ALL THE TIME. How does McGinn get all these “friends” to act in egregiously bad form? Answer: he doesn’t; he just lies about who his sources are or he’s a Stephen Glass clone and imagining them.

My powerful uncontroverted argument could not be countered with simple logic and scholarship. Instead, even with edits, a flailing diarrhea of irrelevant topics was puked on the page raging from vegetables, to Rodgers, to Kevin, to pie servers, to your sickness being big news. That plus the ad hominems, strawmanning and equivocations constitute an ADMISSION and AGREEMENT that McGinn did literally misrepresent the identity of his SCOURCES.