Originally Posted by disaacks3
OK - I listened to it, and Josh "taking umbrage" at the beginning wasn't over-the-line, just radio guy sticking up for radio guy.
Then it happened...
Josh starts taking shots and doing his best to belittle Steph and her "little blog". If he'd taken the high road and just stated the he'd agree to disagree, it'd be one thing. He chose to take the standard JI path of "I can't match you, so I'll try to bring you down".
I've had disagreements with Steph over her take on certain issues over the years, but I never felt any necessity to take this route.
Why? I guess it's because I'm not trying to be a sports-radio shock jock, and I'm trying to have an informed debate. It's also because I have great respect for her. Sure, blogging about the Texans seems like a dream job to many and in some ways I'm sure it is. It also means growing a pretty thick skin. Just like politics, you're going to have a sizeable group that vehemently disagrees with what you're saying. That's fine from your average respondee on Chron.com, but it's not supposed to be acceptable from the "professional" community.
Actually, most of the people who visit my blog are respectful, and disagree without being disagreeable. More often than not, I try to model that behavior, and don't encourage saying silly things to get a reaction. Typically, if you tend to be reasonable and give reasons for your point of view, people tend to be reasonable back.
The folks that aren't that way, I figure it says more about them than me more often than not.
Oh, and I'm always right. At least according to Wade Phillips on Twitter:
About fell out of my chair when I saw that tweet.