Guess Who's Coming to Lunch: April 19th Set for the WH Visit

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Who determines whose place it is to correct the record? The NYT got it wrong about the Pats. The Pats knew how they got it wrong inasmuch as they were immediately aware that the Times had not factored in the staff. That a president that many despise is in office doesn't magically deprive them of the right to say "you got your facts wrong about us and here's how." I also find it amusing that folks are stressing that the fact that the Patriots used three tweets, thereby violating the time honored One Tweet for a Correction Rule, is somehow noteworthy.

Take a breath. While you're doing that, please cite the post where I said I agree with that stance.

I'm completely agnostic about who goes, who doesn't and in general, Tweets. But to ignore that the NYT tweet was not intended to slight the Pats - but instead Trump - and that it was questionable whether the Pats should be the ones to jump in is pretty myopic, IMO. And no, there is no parallel to DFG because his false news wasn't aimed at them, before you even go there.

I'm about as anti-Trump as you can get and while I dissociate that from my football team's association to him, I'm not exactly psyched to see them run out to defend him. I'd prefer they stayed out of as much as they can. Either way - again - the Tweet was not criticizing the NEP and whether you agree with it or not, there is an argument to be made that they should have stayed out of it. Which was my point.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Take a breath. While you're doing that, please cite the post where I said I agree with that stance.

I'm completely agnostic about who goes, who doesn't and in general, Tweets. But to ignore that the NYT tweet was not intended to slight the Pats - but instead Trump - and that it was questionable whether the Pats should be the ones to jump in is pretty myopic, IMO. And no, there is no parallel to DFG because his false news wasn't aimed at them, before you even go there.

I'm about as anti-Trump as you can get and while I dissociate that from my football team's association to him, I'm not exactly psyched to see them run out to defend him. I'd prefer they stayed out of as much as they can. Either way - again - the Tweet was not criticizing the NEP and whether you agree with it or not, there is an argument to be made that they should have stayed out of it. Which was my point.

Take a breath? What the hell does that mean? Hint: nothing.

You questioned the Pats place to correct the record...which is asinine. The record needed correcting and the Pats had every right to correct it. Whether one likes, hates or is indifferent to Trump is irrelevant to that.

 

[AB in DC]

I'm about as anti-Trump as you can get and while I dissociate that from my football team's association to him, I'm not exactly psyched to see them run out to defend him.

Oh for F's sake. You're taking a simple statement about facts and twisting it as being political. This is exactly why so many of us oppose Trump and the nihilist/nationalist branch of the Republican Party to begin with -- they're people who don't care about true or false, facts or lies, all they care about is whether you're for them or against them. And now anti-Trump folks are doing the exact same thing. Depressing.

 

[Kliq]

Couldn't it be as simple as the Patriots wanting to show all the extra staff that came down and got to experience an inside tour of the White House and meet the president? Just saying "Look at all these people that were a part of this day" doesn't seem out of the ordinary to me.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Take a breath? What the hell does that mean? Hint: nothing.

You questioned the Pats place to correct the record...which is asinine. The record needed correcting and the Pats had every right to correct it. Whether one likes, hates or is indifferent to Trump is irrelevant to that.

It means take a second, consider the fact that you're otherwise a reasonable adult and stop being superfan.

The NYT tweet was not aimed at the Patriots. It was aimed at Trump. That's not difficult to decipher. The Pat's certainly had the right to do what they did, but they had no obligation to. They have no obligation to police the political or editorial landscape and that has nothing to do with my views on Trump. Were it aimed at being critical of the Patriots, then by all means, fire away. It was not and if you choose to see it as such, then I think you're being paranoid and yes, need to take a breath and consider what the motivation of the editor at the nyt had when tweeting those photos. Because it wasn't to criticize the Pats.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Oh for F's sake. You're taking a simple statement about facts and twisting it as being political. This is exactly why so many of us oppose Trump and the nihilist/nationalist branch of the Republican Party to begin with -- they're people who don't care about true or false, facts or lies, all they care about is whether you're for them or against them. And now anti-Trump folks are doing the exact same thing. Depressing.

Of course it was political from the nyt's end. Do you think they posted that to criticize the Patriots?

 

[caesarbear]

I agree that the Pats should have corrected the record, however they could have done so without replying to the NYT or digging up comparison photos already published. The third image/tweet was all that was necessary. The Pats twitter strayed into commentary which ain't their job. Frankly, I think most of the blame goes to Twitter itself and the culture that revolves around it. It's literally destructive conversation.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

This thread has just about run its course. Please feel free to carry on in V&N.