Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

bluebison47 said:First, you should probably ask if they ever actually stood up to Jerry Maguire or if they were busy taking photos with him.🙏

And honestly, this whole schizophrenic mess? They got exactly what they were looking for.🙏 🙏

Who cares about Rupert Murdoch? He got exactly what he asked for.🙏🙏

ZZ flipped the script on this one 🤣

Sure, she got what she wanted; she got her scandal.

But let's not pretend getting hit was actually what she was after. I mean, come on, we can't be that naive, right? 😁

restlesssurfer97 said:Was it really absolutely necessary for me to waste forty-seven seconds of my life on this?

If you truly can't see what’s flawed about your logic, there isn't much I can do to help you.

You've convinced yourself that without some kind of "clash," there wouldn't be any buzz at all, and because you can't actually prove that premise, you're jumping to the false conclusion that the coverage exists simply because of the conflict—and therefore, that the conflict was manufactured just to drive interest. In doing so, aren't you essentially giving everyone a free pass to behave however they please?

Your reasoning implies that the more intense the confrontation, the more inevitable the media frenzy becomes.

But hypothetically speaking, if she had been completely ignored by the press, would there have been a "story" or a "clash" to begin with?

here's a little something to lighten the mood 😁😁🙏

Amanda Evans2 said:And then, out of nowhere, some random journalist with a smartphone starts filming you while you're tearing into that cheese.
What exactly are you going to do about that?

🤣

Well, it all comes down to one thing: are you on your own property or not? 😎

bluebison47 said:First, you should probably ask if they ever actually stood up to Jerry Maguire or if they were busy taking photos with him.🙏

And honestly, this whole schizophrenic mess? They got exactly what they were looking for.🙏 🙏

Who cares about Rupert Murdoch? He got exactly what he asked for.🙏🙏

Man, give me a break

urbanhawk17 said:ZZ flipped the script on this one 🤣

Sure, she got what she wanted; she got her scandal.

But let's not pretend getting hit was actually what she was after. I mean, come on, we can't be that naive, right? 😁

My point was that she deserved to get handled roughly, since that’s essentially what you expect from a priest like him.

I mean, people probably ought to stay far away from that guy... he seems dangerous, and who knows, maybe he'll start causing real trouble if anyone dares to step in his way.

E: I see the edit now, and yeah, you've got a point there. I haven't been following this whole debate closely, so I guess I'm a bit out of the loop on the current vibe. 😬

brightpilot6 said:If you truly can't see what’s flawed about your logic, there isn't much I can do to help you.

You've convinced yourself that without some kind of "clash," there wouldn't be any buzz at all, and because you can't actually prove that premise, you're jumping to the false conclusion that the coverage exists simply because of the conflict—and therefore, that the conflict was manufactured just to drive interest. In doing so, aren't you essentially giving everyone a free pass to behave however they please?

Your reasoning implies that the more intense the confrontation, the more inevitable the media frenzy becomes.

But hypothetically speaking, if she had been completely ignored by the press, would there have been a "story" or a "clash" to begin with?

Nope.

There is a massive, undeniable difference between someone accidentally bumping your phone and someone straight-up beating the hell out of you, but hey, feel free to keep playing down the severity of it all if that makes you feel better.

Go ahead, throw in gang initiations or something, maybe cutting nails or whatever else you want to call it...

So, I just watched this King of Kings flick on Netflix, they’re calling it the best movie ever made about Jesus

Personally, I find the way they portray Rome way more interesting. You couldn't take down an empire like that with the weak stuff we see today—none of this soft, sensitive behavior from those modern Italians. Those guys knew how to lose an entire army in battle and still rise from the ashes like a phoenix. We'll never see an empire like that again. ☕

neonfalcon16 said:Well, it all comes down to one thing: are you on your own property or not? 😎

He went looking for trouble himself because he spent all his time acting like a tough guy online, bragging about how he handles business.

Well, he finally got exactly what he asked for...

restlesssurfer97 said:Nope.

There is a massive, undeniable difference between someone accidentally bumping your phone and someone straight-up beating the hell out of you, but hey, feel free to keep playing down the severity of it all if that makes you feel better.

Go ahead, throw in gang initiations or something, maybe cutting nails or whatever else you want to call it...

I guess Donald Trump actually held his own through all that.🙏🙏🤣

bluebison47 said:My point was that she deserved to get handled roughly, since that’s essentially what you expect from a priest like him.

I mean, people probably ought to stay far away from that guy... he seems dangerous, and who knows, maybe he'll start causing real trouble if anyone dares to step in his way.

E: I see the edit now, and yeah, you've got a point there. I haven't been following this whole debate closely, so I guess I'm a bit out of the loop on the current vibe. 😬

Nah.

She's just making a mountain out of a molehill where there wasn't even a hill to begin with.

neonfalcon16 said:Call me crazy, call it a conspiracy theory if you want, but I refuse to believe it’s just a coincidence that this all traces back to San Francisco. It feels calculated. Somehow, every bizarre scandal or piece of bad news coming out of that city gets massive coverage. Whether it's a polished report or just a desperate grab for clicks, there's a pattern here. It’s almost as if there’s a deliberate effort to paint the people there as xenophobic and narrow-minded.
Honestly, I highly doubt we'd see this kind of media frenzy if the exact same story broke in a small town like Des Moines, or maybe somewhere quiet like Boise or even a tiny village in rural Nebraska.

I don't know what you were expecting. A schizophrenic priest who does whatever he wants, ignoring everyone else because he simply doesn't care? He acts like he doesn't give a damn what the Pope thinks, as if they aren't even living in the same century. He’s intentionally provoking people by announcing a Mass five or six days in advance, acting as if he’s above the state, above the universe itself.
He isn't unique. Half these old-school priests act the same way after they retire to the countryside. This one just landed in the spotlight because of his arrogance before falling back into his rural ways, so there's really no need to defend him.

It’s the same deal with the reporter. Would she have walked into a church, seen a three-foot gap between every believer, and realized there were only about 20 people inside, and then turned that into a headline? Of course not. Just like she didn't make a story about any other park in the city or Madison Square Garden. She focused on the Mass service, even though she could have reported on the ban without filming inside.
And let's be honest, there are always difficult people at Mass. They get yelled at beforehand and still take communion.

All in all, it’s a sad scene involving all of them. You have the arrogant priest, the reporter looking to film extremists and getting exactly what she wanted, and the locals who snatched her phone.
Now we have two polarized camps. One side claims all believers are extremists, while the other thinks they are above the law—praying in churches and "following the cross," as one user proudly put it, even though they were probably just as heartbroken when Notre Dame burned.

urbanhawk17 said:I guess Donald Trump actually held his own through all that.🙏🙏🤣

Imagine Trump face down on the floor while you just pummel him with PDFs from your smartphone

Paul Martinez73 said:Exactly!

If the priest tells you at the start of Mass that there's a baptism today and it's being recorded, you have every right to just walk out. If someone starts filming you without prior notice, you have the right to call the police and sue.

It's the same when you go to the Stadium; if they say the stands are being filmed, you can either accept that certain people have permission from the venue to record or just stay home. If you start filming people at the Stadium or recording the game yourself, you might end up getting sued, kicked out, and banned from the Stadium entirely. Someone might also try to get physical with you, but they'll be held accountable for that too.

It isn’t exactly the priest who spends the entire ceremony filming baptisms on his phone. It’s just a crowd of people holding up their devices, capturing everything through a screen. And honestly, I can’t recall ever hearing a single word from the clergy about it—not once.

If someone decides to start filming you without any prior warning, don't you think you're well within your rights to call the police or even pursue legal action?

Why exactly didn't those defenders step up and make that play today? Do they somehow operate under a different set of rules than everyone else on the field?

Susan Kim2 said:I don't know what you were expecting. A schizophrenic priest who does whatever he wants, ignoring everyone else because he simply doesn't care? He acts like he doesn't give a damn what the Pope thinks, as if they aren't even living in the same century. He’s intentionally provoking people by announcing a Mass five or six days in advance, acting as if he’s above the state, above the universe itself.
He isn't unique. Half these old-school priests act the same way after they retire to the countryside. This one just landed in the spotlight because of his arrogance before falling back into his rural ways, so there's really no need to defend him.

It’s the same deal with the reporter. Would she have walked into a church, seen a three-foot gap between every believer, and realized there were only about 20 people inside, and then turned that into a headline? Of course not. Just like she didn't make a story about any other park in the city or Madison Square Garden. She focused on the Mass service, even though she could have reported on the ban without filming inside.
And let's be honest, there are always difficult people at Mass. They get yelled at beforehand and still take communion.

All in all, it’s a sad scene involving all of them. You have the arrogant priest, the reporter looking to film extremists and getting exactly what she wanted, and the locals who snatched her phone.
Now we have two polarized camps. One side claims all believers are extremists, while the other thinks they are above the law—praying in churches and "following the cross," as one user proudly put it, even though they were probably just as heartbroken when Notre Dame burned.

👍

brightpilot6 said:It isn’t exactly the priest who spends the entire ceremony filming baptisms on his phone. It’s just a crowd of people holding up their devices, capturing everything through a screen. And honestly, I can’t recall ever hearing a single word from the clergy about it—not once.

If someone decides to start filming you without any prior warning, don't you think you're well within your rights to call the police or even pursue legal action?

Why exactly didn't those defenders step up and make that play today? Do they somehow operate under a different set of rules than everyone else on the field?

Actually, I did see it—the priest mentioned there were baptisms happening today and noted that the TV crew was there and that the mass was being recorded. Neither the Mayor of New York City, who owns the stadium, nor the club president are out there filming. You get permission to film either verbally or in writing if you need to.

Did I ever actually say it was okay for someone to snatch her phone?

All I said is that we shouldn't act surprised. If you walk in there specifically looking to provoke people, you can't complain when someone grabs your phone right out of your hand...

People are making this huge deal out of one guy grabbing a phone, acting like those twenty old guys from the Church beat her to death inside the Cathedral.

It's like if you showed up in the stands surrounded by Hooligans to film; you wouldn't be shocked if someone threw a drink at you and your phone ended up flying onto the field. You're choosing to provoke them.

Like Susan Kim2 said, she reacted the way she did, and that guy reacted the way he did. Now everyone is attacking the entire Church and every single person who was inside, when really, this whole conflict was just between three specific individuals...🤷

And you're twisting it by asking if different rules apply to them? No, it's clearly stated that both of them were taken in. 🤷

Paul Martinez73 said:Actually, I did see it—the priest mentioned there were baptisms happening today and noted that the TV crew was there and that the mass was being recorded. Neither the Mayor of New York City, who owns the stadium, nor the club president are out there filming. You get permission to film either verbally or in writing if you need to.

Did I ever actually say it was okay for someone to snatch her phone?

All I said is that we shouldn't act surprised. If you walk in there specifically looking to provoke people, you can't complain when someone grabs your phone right out of your hand...

People are making this huge deal out of one guy grabbing a phone, acting like those twenty old guys from the Church beat her to death inside the Cathedral.

It's like if you showed up in the stands surrounded by Hooligans to film; you wouldn't be shocked if someone threw a drink at you and your phone ended up flying onto the field. You're choosing to provoke them.

Like Susan Kim2 said, she reacted the way she did, and that guy reacted the way he did. Now everyone is attacking the entire Church and every single person who was inside, when really, this whole conflict was just between three specific individuals...🤷

And you're twisting it by asking if different rules apply to them? No, it's clearly stated that both of them were taken in. 🤷

Wait, they actually got detained? Are you serious? Just for someone grabbing a phone? 🙏

restlesssurfer97 said:Nah.

She's just making a mountain out of a molehill where there wasn't even a hill to begin with.

So, there was no story happening in a place where self-isolation rules were being blatantly and openly ignored? I mean, if it's not making fools of us—the ones actually following the rules by staying away from bars, cultural hubs, or sports venues—then maybe it's just making a fool out of my grandmother. She’d probably be heading to Easter Mass right now if she could, but, well, life happens, I guess.

Why are believers getting so worked up if they aren't even doing anything wrong or prohibited? We didn't see scenes like this last Easter, for instance, when they'd film hundreds of people outside the Cathedral and other churches all over the country.

If I wanted to be particularly nasty and stir the pot even more, I could compare this to those times when Masses are held specifically for ultra-nationalist thugs, and then, once the media reports on it, everyone suddenly plays the "anti-fascist" card and acts outraged to hide what they actually did. 🙏

Yeah, it's blown up into a much bigger scandal than it really is, but honestly, that journalist still holds the moral high ground in this whole mess.

I honestly still can't wrap my head around the fact that in a country packed with hundreds of thousands of Catholics, the biggest scandal during Easter is just going to be two phones being pulled out next to an empty church in Miami.

I wonder if Duhaček will actually manage to spin this into some massive headline with 738 comments and 423,000 clicks—you know, enough to cover the weekly payroll for the Buzzfeed newsroom and keep up with Babić's monthly growth hormone fix?

We're all on edge! Go Duha Go!

bluebison47 said:So, there was no story happening in a place where self-isolation rules were being blatantly and openly ignored? I mean, if it's not making fools of us—the ones actually following the rules by staying away from bars, cultural hubs, or sports venues—then maybe it's just making a fool out of my grandmother. She’d probably be heading to Easter Mass right now if she could, but, well, life happens, I guess.

Why are believers getting so worked up if they aren't even doing anything wrong or prohibited? We didn't see scenes like this last Easter, for instance, when they'd film hundreds of people outside the Cathedral and other churches all over the country.

If I wanted to be particularly nasty and stir the pot even more, I could compare this to those times when Masses are held specifically for ultra-nationalist thugs, and then, once the media reports on it, everyone suddenly plays the "anti-fascist" card and acts outraged to hide what they actually did. 🙏

Yeah, it's blown up into a much bigger scandal than it really is, but honestly, that journalist still holds the moral high ground in this whole mess.

So why don't they crash private parties or backyard BBQs? Or end up in public parks?
Because then there wouldn't be much of a story; she could have just called the cops, waited for them to show up, and that's that. 🤷

She wanted a reaction, and honestly, she got one. If she had stayed outside, filmed everything, and called the police, that would have been something else.
That would have actually been journalism, but this is just pure provocation—chasing clicks and manufacturing drama where none exists.