Gene Wojciechowski article on Prior, Maddux

[CubinNY]

I will never forget that this guy wrote, (paraphrasing) If stupid were a country, Farnsworth would be the capitol. IMO, he wrote it b/c Farns wouldn't give him an interview for his book.

Was it Farnsworth who refused to be interviewed unless he was compensated? I just assumed that it was Sammy, but now that I think about it, neither were quoted in Cubs Nation.

 

Yes it was Farnsworth.

[jjgman21]

I should have the freedom to say that another person should not exercise his freedom of speech.

 

I would look like an idiot and a hypocrit when doing so, but I certainly should have that freedom.

[goonys evil twin]

I can criticize anything I want. That is what freedom of speech is all about.

 

Sportswriters get off easy b/c most people don't think sports are important enough to really care about.

 

Most of the opinon columns in sports are nothing more than a personal soap box on which to try and demonstrate how witty the writer is, and not about what is going on on the field.

 

Next time you think about read an op-ed piece in the Sun Times and then compare it to something Mike Downey or Jay Marrotti writes in one of thier columns. You will see a difference.

 

And that is where you are wrong. Criticizing somebody simply for voicing their opinion on something is hypocritical. As I said, you can criticize somebody for what their opinion is, but you are flat out wrong thinking you can criticize Wojo for saying what he wants to. He gets paid to write a column and got paid to write Cubs Nation. You can disagree with every word that comes out of his mouth but don't criticize him for doing his job. If you do that then I suggest you change your user name to HypocriteinNY.

 

That's wrong. Very wrong. Life is not NSBB. You can criticize people for having the lack of courtesy to talk about people without acting like a name calling child. You might think somebody is fat and ugly. But you can keep that to yourself. And if you don't, you better believe somebody is going to criticize you for voicing your opinion.

 

Didn't you call me a hypocrite. Wouldn't you consider that name calling?

 

The childish name calling was in reference to the capital of idiots, or whatever that line was. I don't think calling somebody a hypocrite is name calling. If I called you a hypocritical poopoo head, that would be name calling. But I never called you a hyprocite. I said I can't stand how hypocritical some can be when it comes to free speech. Meaning, they act like they are really interested in everybody having freedom of speech, when they really only want one side to have free speech, and attempt to muffle the other side of the debate. That is what you do when you say a writer can write whatever he gets paid to write, and nobody can criticize him for writing that.

[soccer10k]

 

I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for.

 

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job.

 

Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

[soccer10k]

I should have the freedom to say that another person should not exercise his freedom of speech.

 

I would look like an idiot and a hypocrit when doing so, but I certainly should have that freedom.

 

Haha, that's good.

[soccer10k]

The childish name calling was in reference to the capital of idiots, or whatever that line was. I don't think calling somebody a hypocrite is name calling. If I called you a hypocritical poopoo head, that would be name calling. But I never called you a hyprocite. I said I can't stand how hypocritical some can be when it comes to free speech. Meaning, they act like they are really interested in everybody having freedom of speech, when they really only want one side to have free speech, and attempt to muffle the other side of the debate. That is what you do when you say a writer can write whatever he gets paid to write, and nobody can criticize him for writing that.

 

I assumed you were calling me a hypocrite and obviously misunderstood you. My bad.

[goonys evil twin]

 

I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for.

 

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job.

 

Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

 

I understand what's happening here, and it's pretty clear you're writing yourself into a corner. I can criticize him for writing what he wrote. I'm not criticizing him for writing. I'm not even criticizing him for what he wrote. I'm pointing out how absurdly hyprocritical it is to say a writer has the right to write what he wants as long as he's getting paid, but a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize him for writing what he wrote. No matter how much you try to twist it, that's what you are doing, and you are plain old wrong.

[CubinNY]

 

I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for.

 

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job.

 

Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

 

Where in the wide wide world of sports has anyone said he shouldn't be allowed to write a sports column?

 

Wholy smokes, I am having a hard time with this one.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

This isn't the Catholic church and a devout Catholic we're talking about. Criticism of a sportswriter isn't going to get you sent to hell.

[soccer10k]

 

I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for.

 

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job.

 

Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

 

I understand what's happening here, and it's pretty clear you're writing yourself into a corner. I can criticize him for writing what he wrote. I'm not criticizing him for writing. I'm not even criticizing him for what he wrote. I'm pointing out how absurdly hyprocritical it is to say a writer has the right to write what he wants as long as he's getting paid, but a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize him for writing what he wrote. No matter how much you try to twist it, that's what you are doing, and you are plain old wrong.

 

So first off, you were calling me a hypocrite.

 

Secondly, I never said that a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for writing what he wrote. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize Wojo for writing in general. You have not understood my statements. I said it's okay to criticize what somebody wrote. My point was that it's Wojo's job to write what he thinks and you can't criticize him for writing what he thinks because it's his opinion column or book. Again, you can completely disagree with everything he says because that's your opinion. You can even say that he is a horrible writer and you will never read his work. But you can't criticize him for doing his job. That's my point.

[Warpticon]

 

I never said somebody doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for calling Farnsworth an idiot. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize somebody for voicing their opinion on a matter that they are getting paid for.

 

What? So as long as somebody is getting paid to do something, it justifies doing it? You aren't making any sense here. Wojo has the right to call Farns an idiot, and to even go beyond that in the way he calls him an idiot. But others have a right to call him a hack for how he goes about doing his job.

 

Go ahead and criticize what he writes. I could care less about that. But don't criticize him for writing. There is a distinct difference between the two. Obviously you don't understand the difference. I am not a hypocrite because I'm not criticizing either of you for voicing your opinions. I don't agree with what you are saying and am voicing my opinion on that. Wojo is getting paid to write a column and his job description requires him to write his opinion on the current happenings of the sports world. He is getting paid to do that. As I said, if you don't like him then don't read him. It's not very complicated.

 

I understand what's happening here, and it's pretty clear you're writing yourself into a corner. I can criticize him for writing what he wrote. I'm not criticizing him for writing. I'm not even criticizing him for what he wrote. I'm pointing out how absurdly hyprocritical it is to say a writer has the right to write what he wants as long as he's getting paid, but a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize him for writing what he wrote. No matter how much you try to twist it, that's what you are doing, and you are plain old wrong.

 

So first off, you were calling me a hypocrite.

 

Secondly, I never said that a normal citizen doesn't have the right to criticize Wojo for writing what he wrote. I just said that nobody has the right to criticize Wojo for writing in general. You have not understood my statements. I said it's okay to criticize what somebody wrote. My point was that it's Wojo's job to write what he thinks and you can't criticize him for writing what he thinks because it's his opinion column or book. Again, you can completely disagree with everything he says because that's your opinion. You can even say that he is a horrible writer and you will never read his work. But you can't criticize him for doing his job. That's my point.

 

Oh, so you were rebutting an argument that was never made. That's much better.

[UBlink]

Wojo's job requires him to say what he thinks.

 

Wojo's job should be to think about what he says.