When women cover football

[CaneInHeelCountry]

A sexist joke, you have to admit

Which was the point, and (again) was why I followed it up by saying "Seriously, though..."

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

I don't think Ms. Adelson would find your humor funny. She's a professional after all, not a piece of meat for you to drool over.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

I don't think Ms. Adelson would find your humor funny. She's a professional after all, not a piece of meat for you to drool over.

Meh, she and all other women reporters are just dumb *****; what do they know.

 

[Dan E. Dangerously]

I don't think Ms. Adelson would find your humor funny. She's a professional after all, not a piece of meat for you to drool over.

Meh, she and all other women reporters are just dumb *****; what do they know.

I disagree, I only think Adelson is a dumb ****. You shouldn't make a sweeping generalization about female reporters because of 1 dumb person. Pretty closed-minded of you.

 

[frostycane]

Guys, I think were just nit picking at this point. Let it go. Caneheel, you make a valid point. We **** on Dinich all the time and we use female derogatory terms all the time. And if one of us white guys threw the N word out there every time a black guy said or did something dumb we would get hammered for it. Sexism, Racism all should only be tolerated to a minimum. I get the humor but lets be respectful here.

And on top of it, more than it being her, its ESPN! They only show highlights, and who do they show? Duke Johnson! Lets not kid ourselves they plan on doing interviews with him before every game they show of us. Its their front running style.. lol. However she did blow it with the secondary part. It is obviously the DL followed by LB. Which is why the run D sucked! lol I would rate the LB higher had we not lost so many guys and Bond/AQM were defintites to get in...

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Jesus Christ, is this broad your daughter or something?

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ****ing lame.

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

 

[umhurricano]

I admit my title was sexist, but was meant to be tongue and cheek, so I hope everyone can relax and realize that I realize her idiocy has nothing to do with being a woman. The post above makes exactly the right point, which is if your full time job is to cover a handful of teams and that was the article you write, then my respect for that person as a professional will be non-existent.

 

[bathtubgin]

Jesus Christ, is this broad your daughter or something?

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ******* lame.

The only place women have in sports is under a man, or maybe bent over in front of him.

That's not sexist, it's irrefutable fact.

 

[Gamineal]

Really just pick your poison with the D....the O the WR is the strongest...depth etc...

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Jesus Christ, is this broad your daughter or something?

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ****ing lame.

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

 

[umhurricano]

Fair points. I still think if your job is to cover 25 teams it is not that hard to come up with something decent.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Jesus Christ, is this broad your daughter or something?

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ****ing lame.

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

First off, when you started running your cawlkhoster the OP was the only one.

Second, she has been flucking up long before the ACC expansion. (hence my point)

Third, 12, 14, 32 teams whats the difference? A guy like John Clayton has no problem covering every team in the NFL IN DETAIL but her stupid **** can't even keep up with one conference let alone 2.

You are a pedantic little moron aren't you?

 

[Dingaan1828]

Women suck at covering football. Most men do too.

 

[Boarcane]

YOUR ALL SEXIST!
mmmmmmmm
Woman & Football!

FIFY THE END

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

Jesus Christ, is this broad your daughter or something?

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ****ing lame.

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

First off, when you started running your cawlkhoster the OP was the only one.

Second, she has been flucking up long before the ACC expansion. (hence my point)

Third, 12, 14, 32 teams whats the difference? A guy like John Clayton has no problem covering every team in the NFL IN DETAIL but her stupid **** can't even keep up with one conference let alone 2.

You are a pedantic little moron aren't you?

Jeezus Christ...I thought perhaps you were just goofing, but you really are one stupid ****. Apparently, reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills are wayyy beyond you.

I didn't bring sexism into the convo until a second person commented on her gender and called her a dumb ****. Re-read the thread again, there, smart guy.

Did you really just compare the skills of John Clayton--a 60-year old guy who's been reporting for ESPN for 23 years--with a chick who's been with ESPN for 3 ******* years??

By a clew, dummy.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Nah...but I'd **** her.

Seriously, though, the sexism crap gets a little old. Chick didn't say anything that any other sportswriter who isn't a beat writer for UM would say...but she's a "dumb ****" and we make a special thread about chick sportswriters to make fun of them. It's pretty ****ing lame.

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

First off, when you started running your cawlkhoster the OP was the only one.

Second, she has been flucking up long before the ACC expansion. (hence my point)

Third, 12, 14, 32 teams whats the difference? A guy like John Clayton has no problem covering every team in the NFL IN DETAIL but her stupid **** can't even keep up with one conference let alone 2.

You are a pedantic little moron aren't you?

Jeezus Christ...I thought perhaps you were just goofing, but you really are one stupid ****. Apparently, reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills are wayyy beyond you.

I didn't bring sexism into the convo until a second person commented on her gender and called her a dumb ****. Re-read the thread again, there, smart guy.

Did you really just compare the skills of John Clayton--a 60-year old guy who's been reporting for ESPN for 23 years--with a chick who's been with ESPN for 3 ****ing years??

By a clew, dummy.

Capn' save em all day.

You had sand in your mangina at post #6 on this thread... I didn't see anywhere in posts 1-5 that said anything about a dumb ***** **** or anything like that. May you get raped by a wheelbarrow full of herpetic cawlks.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

The only person that said anything even remotely negative regarding the *** of said reporter was the OP in the title of the thread. I think she's a schitty reporter period.

If your one and only job is to cover the ACC and it's measly 12 phuckin teams then you dhamned well better know your schit! 30 mins of browsing ANY Canes board would illuminate the obvious strengths and weaknesses of our team to even the most casual observer, let alone someone who steals a paycheck to write about it. All her articles are written as if she doesn't watch the games, and I doubt she even does more than watch the Sportscenter highlights.

The fact that she is an atrocious reporter has nothing to do with her possession of a ***ina. The same as Brian London's fat rolls have nothing to do with his inability to write a coherent thought.

A schit reporter is a schit reporter regardless of ***, race or obesity. Unfortunately ESPN gives the ACC two of their worst in Adelsen and Dinich.

You've be negged for idiocy.

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

First off, when you started running your cawlkhoster the OP was the only one.

Second, she has been flucking up long before the ACC expansion. (hence my point)

Third, 12, 14, 32 teams whats the difference? A guy like John Clayton has no problem covering every team in the NFL IN DETAIL but her stupid **** can't even keep up with one conference let alone 2.

You are a pedantic little moron aren't you?

Jeezus Christ...I thought perhaps you were just goofing, but you really are one stupid ****. Apparently, reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills are wayyy beyond you.

I didn't bring sexism into the convo until a second person commented on her gender and called her a dumb ****. Re-read the thread again, there, smart guy.

Did you really just compare the skills of John Clayton--a 60-year old guy who's been reporting for ESPN for 23 years--with a chick who's been with ESPN for 3 ****ing years??

By a clew, dummy.

Capn' save em all day.

You had sand in your mangina at post #6 on this thread... I didn't see anywhere in posts 1-5 that said anything about a dumb ***** **** or anything like that. May you get raped by a wheelbarrow full of herpetic cawlks.

Still can't read worth a ****, I see. I didn't say jack about sexism until post #8, genius.

Anyway, this is pointless now. You're too dumb to carry this convo any further. Go hang out with your brony pals in your mom's basement, kid.

 

[Cane Dynasty]

Funny stuff here.

First off, the OP is not the only one who said something negative regarding the *** of the reporter. Go back and read the thread.

Second, I bet she knows that the ACC has 14 teams this year...not 12 teams. 5 minutes of browsing any website at all would tell you that.

Third, she covers the Big East/American and the ACC, so she's got about 24 or 25 teams in total to cover. That's like covering 2/3rds of the NFL. She's not a beat reporter--she's a generalist.

First off, when you started running your cawlkhoster the OP was the only one.

Second, she has been flucking up long before the ACC expansion. (hence my point)

Third, 12, 14, 32 teams whats the difference? A guy like John Clayton has no problem covering every team in the NFL IN DETAIL but her stupid **** can't even keep up with one conference let alone 2.

You are a pedantic little moron aren't you?

Jeezus Christ...I thought perhaps you were just goofing, but you really are one stupid ****. Apparently, reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills are wayyy beyond you.

I didn't bring sexism into the convo until a second person commented on her gender and called her a dumb ****. Re-read the thread again, there, smart guy.

Did you really just compare the skills of John Clayton--a 60-year old guy who's been reporting for ESPN for 23 years--with a chick who's been with ESPN for 3 ****ing years??

By a clew, dummy.

Capn' save em all day.

You had sand in your mangina at post #6 on this thread... I didn't see anywhere in posts 1-5 that said anything about a dumb **** **** or anything like that. May you get raped by a wheelbarrow full of herpetic cawlks.

Still can't read worth a ****, I see. I didn't say jack about sexism until post #8, genius.

Anyway, this is pointless now. You're too dumb to carry this convo any further. Go hang out with your brony pals in your mom's basement, kid.

You dove into this thread head first with your captain save-a-ho cape and mask on with your first post.

Please do carry on qunt cake.