# A "Public" Apology To Jason Quick........



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Dear Jason:

I know you vist this forum because you told me yesterday that you do when I wrote this e-mail to you:



> Atlanta Blazer Man (ABM) here...
> 
> How've you been? Awesome season cranking up. Naturally, I love it! I've
> never been so excited about a Blazers team since the summer of '99
> ...



To which you responded:



> After all the bashing you have done to me on the boards, you seriously expect me to answer you?


I did respond back to you with this:



> C'mon, Jason, I haven't bashed you any more that anyone else. Plus, I get bashed just the same - or more - on the boards. I take it all in stride.
> 
> I'm curious, though, what did I say that's apparently gotten you riled at me? I've seriously forgotten. I would think it was quasi-good-natured, but if I've offended you, I'm seriously sorry about that.



However, I want to take this space, as well, to "publically" apologize to you. I certainy didn't realize that anything I may have said was taken personally by you. For that I'm sorry. Please accept this apology. No response is necessary, though. I'll understand.

Regards,

ABM -- Tim


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Jason,

I didn't bash you. Can you answer the question? :biggrin:

yak


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Whoa!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Jason,

Maybe if you weren't wrong about simple things as often as you are, people wouldn't "bash" you. 

Why don't you grow some thicker skin, you Nancy boy?

signed,

Dan


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

Jason,
Learn about Fernandez before you go on the local radio show.
Like who and where he plays for would be an excellent start.
After all this is your job.:lol: :lol:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Isn't he like 30-40 years old? That's a pretty immature response for a man his age.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think this is helping.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Jason,
Its OK for you to bash Trail Blazer players and management for their actions, but not OK for others to bash you for yours?

Does ABM ever really bash anyone? He's one of the more good natured guys on the board.

You are welcome for all the free info we have provided you on this board. We make your job easier.

Have a swell day, and give Canzano a big wet kiss.

:biggrin:


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Isn't he like 30-40 years old? That's a pretty immature response for a man his age.


What would you expect him to respond? Thanks for calling me a two-bit hack, here's all of the information you want. Please keep it up!


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

For some reason I doubt posting this corespondence here is going to win you back into this guy's good graces.


----------



## blazermaniaisback (Jun 7, 2007)

I like turtles...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Jason,

After all the "bashing" you did to the Blazers organization do you seriously expect them to talk to you, to answer your questions?

Oh, wait.

Grow up.

That said, I will say, it has been more enjoyable to read the Oregonian stuff, including Quick bylines, starting with last season, coinciding with the team's turnaround. Hopefully the O has put the overly negative, soap opera based editorial slant behind them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> What would you expect him to respond? Thanks for calling me a two-bit hack, here's all of the information you want. Please keep it up!


If the Marc Iavaroni shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## Short Bus Ryder (Jun 8, 2007)

Ha, Ha, Ha... ity: Don't make fun of the people in the Media, that's there job to single you out.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I, for one, am willing to let bygones be bygones with Canzano and Quick. I've hated their reporting in the past, but it's been good so far this offseason.

I've enjoyed reading Quick so far... He showed some perspective in not labeling Oden as a bust after two games- so that's a start!


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Wow, what a response. After all of the negativity he brought towards the Blazers, he should expect to get some backlash from actual fans.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

LameR said:


> After all of the negativity he brought towards the Blazers


Riiiiiiiiight, that was Jason Quick's fault. Had nothing to do with the dogfighting, the pot-smoking, the simulated sex acts, the spitting on other players, the flipping off fans, etc. Yep, all Jason Quick.

    

-Pop


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Jason, if you do read this forum, I have to know the answer to this question. How is it that you don't understand the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, or for that matter, why don't most writers that cover the NBA understand the CBA? I'd die to have your job. Knowing the rules of the CBA would be my top priority so that I would be able to inform my readers of "why" and "why not" things happen.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

LameR said:


> Wow, what a response. After all of the negativity he brought towards the Blazers, he should expect to get some backlash from actual fans.


Well the entire media at large was reproachful of the Jailblazers era. Only the hardcore fans who post here were still defensive of a team that seemed to give no regard at all to character. Not to mention that Patterson really distanced the local media from the team. Since the culture/FO overhaul I haven't seen anything but positive coverage of the Blazers.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I, for one, am willing to let bygones be bygones with Canzano and Quick. I've hated their reporting in the past, but it's been good so far this offseason...


Yeppers, that's my feeling, as well. (at least as far as it concerns Quick. Canzano?? Hmmmmm...............)

I'm thinking he was ticked at me for basically accusing him of having a man-crush on Damon.

Ahhh, well. :whoknows:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Jason,
> 
> After all the "bashing" you did to the Blazers organization do you seriously expect them to talk to you, to answer your questions?
> 
> ...


Yes. :clap: 

I hope and pray the pro-$amon anti-Blazers bias is gone for good.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

My guess is that Jason is playing with ABM.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SodaPopinski said:


> Riiiiiiiiight, that was Jason Quick's fault. Had nothing to do with the dogfighting, the pot-smoking, the simulated sex acts, the spitting on other players, the flipping off fans, etc. Yep, all Jason Quick.


Straw man. No one said it was ONLY Quick. But since Quick is the primary source of news at the most prominent local outlet for Blazers news, he was certainly in the vanguard of the negativity. 

As for his initial response to ABM: it seems a bit hostile. I guess I don't know what ABM has said on olive.com, but his commentary on things about the Blazers in general has always seemed rather tame to me. Not bland or uninteresting, but _measured_. 

Ed O.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Jason,

I'm pregnant.

- Nicholas


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I loves me some Jason Quick. He may not be as good as what ever AP writer wrote this but he's always been a good source of objective Blazer information.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq. 

And Quick wrote negative stories about Bozo's like Bonzi, Rasheed, Woods etc because those guys deserved it. There was nothing postive going on with the team at the time.

I swear, some of you guys have something riding way too far up your *** and need to lay off the constant Quick bashing...he doesn't deserve it, he's not a Peter Vescey or Steven A Smith.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't know what ABM has said on olive.com, but his commentary on things about the Blazers in general has always seemed rather tame to me. Not bland or uninteresting, but _measured_.
> 
> Ed O.


I'd say that's a fair comment, Edward. Not "measured" in that I'm afraid to make a mistake. Rather, "measured" because I'm somewhat hesitant to offend anyone.

Which, creates a bit of irony to this thread, now, doesn't it?


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Isn't he like 30-40 years old? That's a pretty immature response for a man his age.


And yet it's a response *I* get almost daily from posters here.:biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq.
> 
> And Quick wrote negative stories about Bozo's like Bonzi, Rasheed, Woods etc because those guys deserved it. There was nothing postive going on with the team at the time.
> 
> I swear, some of you guys have something riding way too far up your @$$ and need to lay off the constant Quick bashing...he doesn't deserve it, he's not a Peter Vescey or Steven A Smith.


One big difference: Vescey, Smith, and Crapzano can hide behind the claim that they are "commentators" not "reporters". Quick is supposed to be a reporter. He is supposed to present the facts, not write editorials. 

The notion that "nothing positive" was happening is silly. For much of the Quick era, the Blazers were a winning team. Quick and company *made a choice* to ignore anything positive while turning every parking ticket into a major scandal.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ABM said:


> I'm thinking he was ticked at me for basically accusing him of having a man-crush on Damon.


Steve Blake's his new heartthrob.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Just to show I can throw out a compliment now and then, Jason is right on that the Blazers should really re-sign Ime!

He's a friggin' genius in that respect, and any other time he agrees with me. Personally, I don't care if he knows the CBA. He does understand how the game is played, which puts him light years ahead of the Fresno Kid.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq.
> 
> And Quick wrote negative stories about Bozo's like Bonzi, Rasheed, Woods etc because those guys deserved it. There was nothing postive going on with the team at the time.
> 
> I swear, some of you guys have something riding way too far up your @$$ and need to lay off the constant Quick bashing...he doesn't deserve it, he's not a Peter Vescey or Steven A Smith.


:clap: Well said.
If some fans think Quick's negativity gets redundant after awhile, the constant bashing of him on this board is equally as much, or even more.
There's always got to be someone who's drawing the ire of Blazer fans.. hahah..


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Jason, if you do read this forum, I have to know the answer to this question. How is it that you don't understand the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, or for that matter, why don't most writers that cover the NBA understand the CBA? I'd die to have your job. Knowing the rules of the CBA would be my top priority so that I would be able to inform my readers of "why" and "why not" things happen.


Hey, at least he fessed-up. :clap2: :cheers: 



> There was a snafu in today's story about Ime Udoka and his chances at returning to the Blazers.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

It's cool guys, my father-in-law is Hulk Hogan and he know Quick. I'll just ask the Hulkster what's up Jason's butt. OOOHHHH YEEAAAH BRRRUUTTHHERRRRR!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> I'd say that's a fair comment, Edward. Not "measured" in that I'm afraid to make a mistake. Rather, "measured" because I'm somewhat hesitant to offend anyone.
> 
> Which, creates a bit of irony to this thread, now, doesn't it?


Indeed it does... if he had responded to me that way (which is impossible, because I would never email him, but anyway), it would probably be justified. Even though I don't think I'm particularly tough on him, I make ridiculous statements occasionally.

You, though, tend to be more careful 

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> It's cool guys, my father-in-law is Hulk Hogan and he know Quick. I'll just ask the Hulkster what's up Jason's butt. OOOHHHH YEEAAAH BRRRUUTTHHERRRRR!


Who was that claiming to be the Hulkster's son-in-law...I remember seeing that in another thread...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> It's cool guys, my father-in-law is Hulk Hogan and he know Quick. I'll just ask the Hulkster what's up Jason's butt. OOOHHHH YEEAAAH BRRRUUTTHHERRRRR!


if Brooke ever leaves you, I'm willing to take your seconds.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Who was that claiming to be the Hulkster's son-in-law...I remember seeing that in another thread...


Some cat came on here and claimed that Rowdy Roddy Piper was his father-in-law. I just thought it was funny the way he was name dropping. But in all honesty the Hulk is my father-in-law. Ask HAP, he has pictures of our wedding. HAP, put down the bong and post some of those pix! PS-the Macho Man is my uncle and Elizabeth is my aunt!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Some cat came on here and claimed that Rowdy Roddy Piper was his father-in-law. I just thought it was funny the way he was name dropping. But in all honesty the Hulk is my father-in-law. Ask HAP, he has pictures of our wedding. HAP, put down the bong and post some of those pix! PS-the Macho Man is my uncle and Elizabeth is my aunt!


1. the Hap never has used a bong. 2. Miss Elizabeth is dead. 3. ooooooooh yeeeeah!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> if Brooke ever leaves you, I'm willing to take your seconds.


Hmmmmmm...


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> 1. the Hap never has used a bong. 2. Miss Elizabeth is dead. 3. ooooooooh yeeeeah!


Duh! I knew that my aunt was dead. I was having lunch with my cousin Mean Jean when i found out. Where are the pix?


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

ABM said:


> Hmmmmmm...


Dude this is crazy! I took that picture!


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

The best part about this place is we can be talking about somthing like "I love you J Quick" and end up with a picture of my hot-*** wife. I LOVE THIS PLACE!!!!


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I'm not sure what people have against Quick.

He knows what he's talking about I'd say about 90% of the time. He's not perfect, but no body is.

He was negative about the team. So what? There isn't a lot to be positive about when a team is full of *******es, gets knocked out of the playoffs early, misses the playoffs, and then wins 27 and then 21 games in a season.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> I'm not sure what people have against Quick.
> 
> He knows what he's talking about I'd say about 90% of the time.


Is that supposed to be a statement in support of Jason? If 1 of every 10 things I did at work was wrong, I believe I'd be involuntarily looking for a new job.

barfo


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> The best part about this place is we can be talking about somthing like "I love you J Quick" and end up with a picture of my hot-*** wife. I LOVE THIS PLACE!!!!



She seems Pretty Cool

Is THIS how she met you?!


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> And Quick wrote negative stories about Bozo's like Bonzi, Rasheed, Woods etc because those guys deserved it.


Any news article he may have written, in which he reported the facts of actual wrong-doing by a player, is by no means a "negative" story. It's the news. It's his job.

Mostly, he wrote game summaries in which his bias against and for certain players permeated the "analysis" he provided his readers. He let his feelings about certain players dictate his "facts." Whether his (and Canzano's) propoganda pieces were completely of his own will or directed to him by his employers has been debated.



> There was nothing postive going on with the team at the time.


Seriously? Of course there was. We were a perennial playoff team and championship contender when certain factions of the media developed a vendetta against the Blazers and some of it's players. Even once the complete destruction of the team had been achieved, I seem to recall a certain, thrilling, inspiring, season-ending game against the Lakers where the Pritchard-led Baby Blazers beat Kobe and Company in what was to me the first game of the new-era, new "culture" Blazers. The Boards were abuzz. But Jason DIDN'T EVEN WRITE ONE WORD ABOUT THE GAME. Not one word. Choosing instead to run an end-of-season summary that focused on every 'bad' thing he could dredge up. No, no bias there.

Other than that, I hope him the best. I hope he studies up on the CBA and the salary cap. And I hope he likes our players, finally, so he can enjoy our future successes with the rest of us.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> I'm not sure what people have against Quick.
> 
> He knows what he's talking about I'd say about 90% of the time. He's not perfect, but no body is.
> 
> He was negative about the team. So what? There isn't a lot to be positive about when a team is full of *******es, gets knocked out of the playoffs early, misses the playoffs, and then wins 27 and then 21 games in a season.



Depends on what you mean by "knowing what he is talking about."

The best way to deceive somebody isn't to make stuff up - it is to tell the truth and leave out the inconvenient parts. Those of us who don't share his personal agenda or welcome his spin-doctoring have complaints that go beyond his "honest" mistakes about issue like the CBA.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq.


I'm sure you meant "how Bush is *mis-*handling Iraq.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

barfo said:


> Is that supposed to be a statement in support of Jason? If 1 of every 10 things I did at work was wrong, I believe I'd be involuntarily looking for a new job.
> 
> barfo


Different rules for different lines or work I suppose.

I should add that when he gets things wrong, I don't think it's because he's made things up. Sometimes you'll hear things that just aren't true. Sometimes people change their minds. Sometimes people will say one thing and do another.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq.


First, if we don't point out his mistakes, who is going to? 

I think we can cut him some slack here, because as I understand the newspaper business, there used to be editors who actually edited copy and would find and correct errors. However, those have largely or completely been done away with over the last several years of budget cutting, so probably what Quick writes goes directly to print without any other human ever looking at it. And it's hard to spot your own mistakes, much easier to spot someone else's. 

On the other hand, research is a lot easier today with everything online instead of in the morgue, and software spell-checkers at least eliminate that particular type of error.

Second, if one can't handle writing on a tight deadline, one probably shouldn't choose sportswriting as a profession. Or at least one should choose a sport played in the afternoon, like baseball or football.

As for it being a FREAKING BALL GAME, it is. No one is going to die if Quick makes a mistake. Similarly, nobody dies if Theo or DA get hangnails and don't play. After all, it's just a FREAKING BALL GAME. Who cares if we win or lose? Why should we expect professionalism from the players, or from the writers who cover the sport? It's just a FREAKING BALL GAME.

barfo


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Nightfly said:


> Different rules for different lines or work I suppose.


It's true. If he were picking stocks, a 90% success rate would make him a genius and a very rich man. If he's flying airplanes, 90% success rate makes him dead in short order. 

In the newspaper reporter business, I really think the standards should be higher than 90%. 

barfo


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

95%?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

barfo said:


> In the newspaper reporter business, I really think the standards should be higher than 90%.
> 
> barfo


Maybe so, but I think 90% is a lot better then a lot of other beat writers that cover the NBA.

People on the boards seem to jump on everything he writes. That's what I don't understand. Being called out for mistakes is fine and dandy, but people seem to get ticked off about every other thing he writes.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

BBert said:


> Even once the complete destruction of the team had been achieved, I seem to recall a certain, thrilling, inspiring, season-ending game against the Lakers where the Pritchard-led Baby Blazers beat Kobe and Company in what was to me the first game of the new-era, new "culture" Blazers. The Boards were abuzz. But Jason DIDN'T EVEN WRITE ONE WORD ABOUT THE GAME. Not one word. Choosing instead to run an end-of-season summary that focused on every 'bad' thing he could dredge up. No, no bias there.


You're absolutely correct on that matter. I remember that last game of the year against the Lakers. The starters of the fourth quarter was something like Ha, Outlaw, Telfair, etc.. Very exciting fourth quarter against the Lakers featuring the THEN youth core of the Blazers. The next day, Quick did not write A SINGLE word about the game. Instead, he wrote a negativity story on the whole Blazers season. He could have been objective and fair, and wrote about that game, but instead he choose to be negative.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Lets not forget that Quick was the guy who peaked thru the blinds at the pre-draft workout (Morrison, I think) when he knew darn well that he wasn’t supposed to do and then reported what he saw. Real professional and real smart!


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> Lets not forget that Quick was the guy who peaked thru the blinds at the pre-draft workout (Morrison, I think) when he knew darn well that he wasn’t supposed to do and then reported what he saw. Real professional and real smart!


Meh. As I recall a bunch of us were cheering him on after the fact. And with Pritchard, it wouldn't have been that big a deal. If Pritchard really didn't want something reported, he would be smart enough to not have it possible to peek through blinds and if he somehow failed there, he'd view it as his fault and wouldn't have gotten his nose all bent out of shape the way Patterson did.

It could've gone either way but I wouldn't hold that one against the man.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

LameR said:


> Wow, what a response. After all of the negativity he brought towards the Blazers, he should expect to get some backlash from actual fans.


Maybe this isn't what you mean, but the way I read the "actual fans" part of that it's as if you think he's supposed to be a fan but failing.

If so, I'd say that he and anyone else covering a team (perhaps outside of people getting paid by the team) need to _not_ be fans to do their jobs well.


----------



## jwhoops11 (Nov 26, 2003)

I'll throw my vote in for Pro JQ. 

Say what you want about his mistakes, working for the Blazers in the Rasheed,Bonzi,Damon...Steve Patterson days, was not easy. He does a fairly good job of covering the team and I appreciate his work.

He gets negative cred on this board for his Ivaroni reporting, nobody remembers stories he did break like the Derek Anderson sign and trade back in the day. He was the only reporter, local or national that had DA being traded here, and at the time that was a very important move for both the Spurs and Blazers.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> 1. *the Hap never has used a bong*. 2. Miss Elizabeth is dead. 3. ooooooooh yeeeeah!


That's right, you just used pop cans.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

brewmaster said:


> You're absolutely correct on that matter. I remember that last game of the year against the Lakers. The starters of the fourth quarter was something like Ha, Outlaw, Telfair, etc.. Very exciting fourth quarter against the Lakers featuring the THEN youth core of the Blazers. The next day, Quick did not write A SINGLE word about the game. Instead, he wrote a negativity story on the whole Blazers season. He could have been objective and fair, and wrote about that game, but instead he choose to be negative.


Exactly! I remember that so well. I was at the game and so pissed when they didn't even do a story on it. It went against the spin they were putting on everything so it was ignored.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I can understand a lot of posters needing to issue public apologies, but you aren't one, and Quick is the last person you should apologixe to.


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> Journalists do make mistakes. I think it's immature to think you're soo cool to catch a mistake you have to announce it all over a message board. Many times they are on very tight deadlines, and the dude is reporting about a FREAKING BALL GAME, not how Bush is handling Iraq.
> 
> And Quick wrote negative stories about Bozo's like Bonzi, Rasheed, Woods etc because those guys deserved it. There was nothing postive going on with the team at the time.
> 
> I swear, some of you guys have something riding way too far up your *** and need to lay off the constant Quick bashing...he doesn't deserve it, he's not a Peter Vescey or Steven A Smith.



Bravo. Couldn't agree more. Some of you have no clue what you're talking about and I'm starting to see why this board can be so irrelevant, immature, and overreactive sometimes.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

sanfranduck said:


> Bravo. Couldn't agree more. Some of you have no clue what you're talking about and I'm starting to see why this board can be so irrelevant, immature, and overreactive sometimes.


Ok then. Not much of an argument you are making here, but you are surely welcome to your opinion.

barfo


----------



## sanfranduck (Jan 31, 2005)

Hey barfo, I was just agreeing with Loyalty -- didn't want to re-state all the same things over again that had already been said (that happens enough around here).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

sanfranduck said:


> Hey barfo, I was just agreeing with Loyalty -- didn't want to re-state all the same things over again that had already been said (that happens enough around here).


Agreed. 



Okay, I won't just stop there, though it was tempting. :biggrin: 

I have to say, I'm amazed at how black and white some of us are, both on this topic and on others. For some, every trade we don't like is in the running for *Worst Trade Ever!* And here with Quick, holding things like the Iavaroni business over him seems petty. He made a mistake in predicting it a done deal. Still for all we know someone in the Blazers might've set him up for that one (just for "friendly laughs" of course -- I can easily enough see Patterson doing something like that). We'll also never know how close that might've really been. Things can be 90% agreed to and then something changes at the last moment.

At the same time, I'd love it if Quick and Canzano would both make the effort to get a better handle on capology and the like. That's the one place where I see them consistently come up short compared to what I think of as a remarkably high percentage of us here, given that (presumably) most everyone here isn't paid to follow this stuff.

The jokes regarding Damon... that's so unspeakably lame that I'm not going to bother saying more on that one. The negative reporting? I suppose there might be something to that. Or perhaps better said, there's sometimes been a lack of positive reporting. But from my perspective, _most_ of the "negative" reporting has still been true and I think it's been important that the team's been called on a lot of it. We'll never know what some of the other paths might've been like had Quick's reporting been dramatically different, but I'm inclined to give him (and, to a lesser extent, Canzano and the guys on The Fan) _some_ credit in helping turn the franchise around.

It seems to me that some of us want our reporters to be fans, which I don't think is appropriate, and others of us get our noses bent out of shape too easily over mistakes made when we don't have anything like the whole picture. Sure there's room for improvement -- I'd _love_ for the Oregonian's Blazers focused staff to have a better handle on the rules around trades, free agent signings and the like. I'd also love for one unnamed member of the Oregonian staff to become a little less puppy-like, though that might be hoping for too much. :biggrin: 

All in all, though, I'm fairly happy with the reporting and, unlike some posters here, that's not new -- even during the Dark Days Quick was my favorite source for Blazers news and opinions. And fortunately, there are a fair number of ways to get Blazers news so those who really don't want to deal with Quick don't have to.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I don't expect reporters to be fans, but I do expect them to be fair and at times I've felt the Oregonian writers haven't been. I've read the Oregonian since 74 and have never seen some of the tactics some writers have used on the Oregonian, one in particular. I expect fair and objective reporting, which doesn't mean don't report anything negative, and I haven't seen that at times in my opinion and that is what upsets me and I think upsets a lot of people that have problems with the Oregonian.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I don't think this is helping.


Totally off topic, I just have to say, Crimson, that that line had me rolling. Well done! :cheers:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> Duh! I knew that my aunt was dead. I was having lunch with my cousin Mean Jean when i found out. Where are the pix?


Mean Gene.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Meh. As I recall a bunch of us were cheering him on after the fact. And with Pritchard, it wouldn't have been that big a deal. If Pritchard really didn't want something reported, he would be smart enough to not have it possible to peek through blinds and if he somehow failed there, he'd view it as his fault and wouldn't have gotten his nose all bent out of shape the way Patterson did.
> 
> It could've gone either way but I wouldn't hold that one against the man.


Oh ya, I forgot its 2007 and nobody takes responsiblity for their actions anymore. It's always someone else's fault.

When you are a journalist/reporter... you have a certain code of ethics you are supposed to follow. Quick broke that code by looking thru the blinds and then reporting it. Local reporters where in that same room for years during other workouts, nobody else did what he did. Hmmmmm, maybe there's a reason why.


To all of you who have posted things like "there was nothing good going on with the Trail Blazers at the time for Quick to report about etc. etc. etc."... thanks for proving my point. If you think its OK for Quick and Crapzano to report the bad, then its OK for us to post about the bad things we think they've done. Plain and simple.


For all you Quick and Crapzano lovers, explain to me why our media is known for reporting EVERY single thing bad that happens, even if its really minor, compared to what is reported in other cities?


All in all, I think Quick does a solid job... but there is room for improvement. Crapzano is pathetic, and I cant grasp why he even has a job. I understand that they need to report the major bad incidents, but it would also be nice if they'd report some of the good things the players and franchise do for the community. The Trail Blazers have won awards for their community service work, does Quick/Crapzano report that? Of course not... it doesnt get people pissed off. 


My cousin is Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

I have read numerous basketball beat reporters for many, many NBA teams on the internet through the years. I have never seen a reporter make so many mistakes regarding the NBA salary cap. It happens at least once a year with Quick. Good gravy! You'd think the guy would get a clue and read up on the salary cap. Even the casual fan knows that Portland holds Travis Outlaw's "Bird rights", and can match any offer made.

There are numerous sources for understanding the NBA salaray cap on the net. I bet Quick has never looked at one.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

and the Washington Post had the official Francis buyout news on its website before Quick and his crew at Olive did. :lol: They even give credit to the Washington Post and quote their story. :lol:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> It seems to me that some of us want our reporters to be fans, which I don't think is appropriate,


In case I'm included in that group let me just clarify my comments to say that I don't want the reporters to be 'fans.' We have the 2 Mikes, as Blazers employees, to do the Rah-Rah bit. :biggrin: But since he (and much of the rest of the Portland media) can't seem to separate his bias from his reporting, at least if he likes the players (i.e. $amon), maybe he will give them, and us, the readers, a fair shake. When I read about the game, I want to read facts about the game, not some thinly veiled propaganda piece or gossip column, which is all we were treated to for a while. I hope those days are gone for good. File 'opinion' pieces under 'editorial;' news stories about player misdeeds under 'news;' and game summaries under 'game summary.' Is that too much to ask?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

For the record, I think it is totally unethical of ABM to post Quick's personal email to him, especially considering ABM is an anonymous screen name and Quick has his name attached.

Poor form and in poor taste.

:thumbdown:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> For the record, I think it is totally unethical of ABM to post Quick's personal email to him, especially considering ABM is an anonymous screen name and Quick has his name attached.
> 
> Poor form and in poor taste.
> 
> :thumbdown:



Perhaps.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> Lets not forget that Quick was the guy who peaked thru the blinds at the pre-draft workout (Morrison, I think) when he knew darn well that he wasn’t supposed to do and then reported what he saw. Real professional and real smart!


Thank you for reminding me of one of Steve Patterson's most irrational and bizarre moments (in a tenure full of them) while in Portland.

That whole outrage was completely ridiculous and Quick actually did his job well by peeking through the blinds. Patterson's ever-increasing paranoia during his stay in Portland was not the fault of the Portland media.

:biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> For the record, I think it is totally unethical of ABM to post Quick's personal email to him, especially considering ABM is an anonymous screen name and Quick has his name attached.
> 
> Poor form and in poor taste.
> 
> :thumbdown:


did you not read where he signed it as "Tim"?

considering ABM probably didn't send the email to JQ as just "ABM", and in fact wrote his name in the post, I don't think it's "poor form and in poor taste".


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

papag said:


> For the record, I think it is totally unethical of ABM to post Quick's personal email to him, especially considering ABM is an anonymous screen name and Quick has his name attached.
> 
> Poor form and in poor taste.
> 
> :thumbdown:


:lol:

You must not have read it all, because ABM's real name is there also. And we all already know Quicks name, so I dont really see your point. Looks to me like you just pulled a "Quick" and didnt get all the info straight before you started typing.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Hap said:


> did you not read where he signed it as "Tim"?
> 
> considering ABM probably didn't send the email to JQ as just "ABM", and in fact wrote his name in the post, I don't think it's "poor form and in poor taste".


Oh, it's TIM! Now I know exactly who you are talking about!

:lol:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

papag said:


> Thank you for reminding me of one of Steve Patterson's most irrational and bizarre moments (in a tenure full of them) while in Portland.
> 
> That whole outrage was completely ridiculous and Quick actually did his job well by peeking through the blinds. Patterson's ever-increasing paranoia during his stay in Portland was not the fault of the Portland media.
> 
> :biggrin:


I agree that Patterson had is bizarre moments... but you need to look into reporters code of ethics. As I said before, no other reporter did it in all the years they where in the room because they knew it wasnt good journalism.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> :lol:
> 
> You must not have read it all, because ABM's real name is there also. And we all already know Quicks name, so I dont really see your point. Looks to me like you just pulled a "Quick" and didnt get all the info straight before you started typing.


OK, so it's TIM! That totally clears up the confusion.










My bad.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> I agree that Patterson had is bizarre moments... but you need to look into reporters code of ethics. As I said before, no other reporter did it in all the years they where in the room because *they knew it wasnt good journalism*.



I actually think it is exactly what journalism should be - using anything legal to investigate and find content for your story.

I wonder how Pritchard managed to work under Patterson. They seem to be polar opposites in how they manage both their employees and the media.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

> You must not have read it all, because ABM's real name is there also. And we all already know Quicks name


"Jason Quick" is one of the most made-up-sounding names I've ever heard for an nba beat reporter. Not that I think less of him for using a fake name, I'm okay with it. Plus, "Jason Quick" has kind of a nice ring to it. He chose wisely.


that said, I agree with those who say that it's in bad taste to call "Jason" out in public and print his private email on this board. 

It seems obvious that people look up to you here, ABM. you're not a mod but I'm guessing you have been one before. Mod or not, you lead by example- more than anyone else here that I can tell. And then this?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> Oh, it's TIM! Now I know exactly who you are talking about!
> 
> :lol:


Wow, you sure proved your point here. Tim didn't use his last name in the copy of the email he posted for us. Yah, that's unethical. Despite the fact that Jason Quick makes his name public, and his email address is made public.

you sure showed him!


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Hap said:


> Wow, you sure proved your point here. Tim didn't use his last name in the copy of the email he posted for us. Yah, that's unethical. Despite the fact that Jason Quick makes his name public, and his email address is made public.
> 
> you sure showed him!


Your excuses aside, it is unethical and it makes this board look like crap.

JMO, though.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

blakejacked said:


> that said, I agree with those who say that it's in bad taste to call "Jason" out in public and print his private email on this board.


Why do you think this e-mail exchange is "private"?

Does it involve personal business of Jason?

Does it involve a confidential source?

Does it include private or personal details, ie financial or medical or secret testimony?

Needless to say, I hardly agree with your contention that this e-mail exchange with a publicly accountable figure such as Jason Quick is "Private".


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Funny... blakejack and papag think its unethical of AMB to post the content of a "private" email exchange with Quick, but think its OK for Quick to peak thru blinds during a "private" workout and make public/report what he saw.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

papag said:


> Thank you for reminding me of one of Steve Patterson's most irrational and bizarre moments (in a tenure full of them) while in Portland.
> 
> That whole outrage was completely ridiculous and Quick actually did his job well by peeking through the blinds. Patterson's ever-increasing paranoia during his stay in Portland was not the fault of the Portland media.
> 
> :biggrin:


My response is not for you, but for those others who may have forgotten:

Patterson was operating under demands from Morrison's agent to keep the workout closed.

Everybody knows why that would have been the case. Morrison is a terrible defender. The Blazers really wanted to see Morrison in a competitive workout, but his agent refused to allow it unless it was closed. He feared the bad publicity if Morrison got burned on defense - which is exactly what occured.

To blame Patterson for all this mess, is to blame the guy stuck in the middle. The worst that can be said for Patterson is this situation, is that he made the mistake of trusting Quick.

What does that tell you?


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Personally, I have never found fault with Quick, Canzano, KFXX, Dwight...on and on..

It is their job to inform us and sometimes stir the pot.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Why do you think this e-mail exchange is "private"?
> 
> Does it involve personal business of Jason?
> 
> ...



I think we can all generally understand the context of the conversation between two individuals as private and regardless of the fact it was with a public individual I don't think he would automatically presume it would be posted on a board. We're not playing lawyer-ball here. If we are, let me know and I'll be glad to start nitpicking every word written by every individual and charge $325 an hour for it too.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> I think we can all generally understand the context of the conversation between two individuals as private and regardless of the fact it was with a public individual I don't think he would automatically presume it would be posted on a board. We're not playing lawyer-ball here. If we are, let me know and I'll be glad to start nitpicking every word written by every individual and charge $325 an hour for it too.


And the Trail Blazers didnt presume that Morrison's private workout would be posted on Olive either.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Speaking of stirring the pot, well done ABM. :biggrin: 

As to Jason's response cited in the original post:


> After all the bashing you have done to me on the boards, you seriously expect me to answer you?


I've been reading ABM's posts for going on 7 years now (wow!). I don't recall ABM ever 'bashing' Quick, and I find it hard to believe he did; and certainly not in the 'serial' manner implied in the quote. It's just not his style. 

I think Jason must have gotten ABM mixed up with someone else; or he meant it as a joke; or he is amazingly thin-skinned for someone in his profession; or he has tonsilitis and he's worn out; or something.

Anyway, it gives us something fun and meaningless to argue about while we are waiting for the 'back end' and our future SF and our guards to be set for the season and whatever ??? Kevin has in store. 

Go Blazers!

:cheers:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> Your excuses aside, it is unethical and it makes this board look like crap.
> 
> JMO, though.


posters who seem to make mountains out of milehills make this board look like crap.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> posters who seem to make mountains out of milehills make this board look like crap.


Aren't mountains and "milehills" the same thing?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Unless you're in Canada, and they're called Meterhills.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

ABM: It sounds like Quick is actually referring to correspondence on the OregonLive forum, not here. You frequent / used to frequent that one, right? And I can imagine you being a little freer with "bashes" over there than here. So maybe your "public apology" would be more appropriate (and actually read by the person to whom you are apologizing) there vs. here?

Just a thought.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> Unless you're in Canada, and they're called Meterhills.


Wouldn't that be "kilometerhills"?

PBF


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Wouldn't that be "kilometerhills"?
> 
> PBF


Okay, now I think we're making milehills out of yardhills.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> And the Trail Blazers didnt presume that Morrison's private workout would be posted on Olive either.


As I've said in other parts of this board - why do you think that it makes it right to commit two wrongs? This isn't an eye-for-an-eye bloodfest. I can't believe any of you would teach your kids that it's okay to do unto others as whatever is done to you.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> As I've said in other parts of this board - why do you think that it makes it right to commit two wrongs? This isn't an eye-for-an-eye bloodfest. I can't believe any of you would teach your kids that it's okay to do unto others as whatever is done to you.


My only point was that some people defend Quick but bash the Trail Blazers for doing the same thing. Which is hypocritical.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

In other news...

I like turtles.

PBF


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> ABM: It sounds like Quick is actually referring to correspondence on the OregonLive forum, not here. You frequent / used to frequent that one, right? And I can imagine you being a little freer with "bashes" over there than here. So maybe your "public apology" would be more appropriate (and actually read by the person to whom you are apologizing) there vs. here?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> PBF


He never responded to my last e-mail (prior to me posting this thread, BTW), so I guess I'll never know.

To my knowledge, though (O-Live or otherwise), I've never "bashed" him to the degree of being disrespectful.....at least as far as I was aware of. That's why I sent him that last e-mail.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> posters who seem to make mountains out of milehills make this board look like crap.


Bingo, Bango, Bongo.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> In other news...
> 
> I like turtles.
> 
> PBF


I have a turtle. Her name is Mickey.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

bfan1 said:


> I have a turtle. Her name is Mickey.


My box turtle Fred resides in my parent's backyard.....about six feet under.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> My box turtle Fred resides in my parent's backyard.....about six feet under.


Zombie Turtle!!! Would make a good mascot....


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> posters who seem to make mountains out of milehills make this board look like crap.


I remember back in the day when they could make Miles out of mole-spills.....


----------

