Art Monk not in the HOF - DUMP SI

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:37 am

I was just saying that you support an organization that basically does the same thing that SI does.... Also, I don't think looking at ladies in bikinis could be considered "porn" or even "soft porn" for that matter... They're pretty girls in bikinis... lot's of guys like looking at that... doesn't mean it all of a sudden turns into some kind of sexual fantasy...

JansenFan · Post by **JansenFan** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:41 am

Following that line of thought, only perverts would go to the beach.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:56 am

BringThePain! wrote:lot's of guys like looking at that...

As I said, sex sells.

BringThePain! wrote: doesn't mean it all of a sudden turns into some kind of sexual fantasy...

Sure, it is the artistic quality and the perfect balance of colour in the photographs...

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:10 pm

JansenFan wrote:Following that line of thought, only perverts would go to the beach.

No, you have taken the argument out of context. We are talking (actually writing) about a vulgar -commercial- operation.

I have met a whole bunch of very attractive women in Mexican and Caribbean beaches. This is reality. There is no marketing scheme. It is also a lot more rewarding from all points of view.

The issue is not against femininity, or even sex. On the contrary, the argument is against the -use- of sex for a commercial objective. The argument is against the use of women as objects instead of as intelligent -and- beautiful human beings.

There are tons of truly artistic renderings of the bodies of nude women that honour them. My point is not against nudity. I admire many photographs, paintings and sculptures that reaveal the totality of the human body.

It is the tasteless commercial exloitation of sex that I deplore. SI "targets" a certain group of the male readership. It will always work with some that are willing to engage in that type of commercial operation.

SI must resort to that issue to assure themselves of income in lieu of solid, impartial and well-researched sports articles.

It is a matter of -choice-.

BringThePain! · Post by **BringThePain!** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:14 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:
BringThePain! wrote:lot's of guys like looking at that...
As I said, sex sells.

BringThePain! wrote: doesn't mean it all of a sudden turns into some kind of sexual fantasy...
Sure, it is the artistic quality and the perfect balance of colour in the photographs...

now you're an art major?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:19 pm

BringThePain! wrote:now you're an art major?

No, I am a modest art collector and admirer (among a few other things).

My main hobby during the offseason is fly-fishing and cooking. I would cook something nice for you guys if we ever get to meet at a tailgate party. I can do some real good barbecue...

...if you drop your SI subscription... :lol:

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:45 pm

I tried fly-fishing, but they weren't biting.
Anyway, it worked.
I got your mind off of Monk. You're welcome.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:28 pm

tcwest10 wrote:I tried fly-fishing, but they weren't biting.

You should come up North to Nova Scotia. They are biting around here. Spring is great.

And the cooking, it is for real. I only cook for family and friends. Redskins fans count as friends.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:35 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote: You should come up North to Nova Scotia. They are biting around here. Spring is great.

And the cooking, it is for real. I only cook for family and friends. Redskins fans count as friends.

Nova Scotia ? I thought they renamed it East Maine ?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:40 pm

tcwest10 wrote:Nova Scotia ? I thought they renamed it East Maine ?

That's before the Revolutionary gangs got their bums kicked out of Upper Canada and Quebec a few years ago. :lol:

You can say that the "Patriots" -really- lost around here...

Actually it was called New France before it became Nova Scotia.

We should invite Art for a fishing expedition around here. There are some nice fishing lodges around here.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:49 pm

Honestly, RiC...I think he'd be a little scared of you. You know, you got this Glenn Close thing workin' here...
Especially when he sees the little "Monk" shrine, complete with a freshly slaughtered pig, and chicken bones everywhere.
Why, the incense alone would run him off.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:24 pm

tcwest10 wrote:Honestly, RiC...I think he'd be a little scared of you. You know, you got this Glenn Close thing workin' here...

Now I am the biggest Art Monk fan? :hmm:

I thought that privilege was all yours. After all, you will not be IGNORED.

tcwest10 wrote:Especially when he sees the little "Monk" shrine, complete with a freshly slaughtered pig, and chicken bones everywhere.
Why, the incense alone would run him off.

Geee! This Voodoo stuff is not working man, I tell you! We should try something different -against- Peter K. and Paul Z.

Maybe something more of a family ARRANGEMENT

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:30 pm

I just heard back from Woody Paige from the Denver Post. He writes:

"Write to each voter and explain all the reasons he should be voted in. But
don't be a fan. Compare him to every receiver in the Hall. Have quotes from
all the defensive backs who played against him. Won't matter, though. There
are enough voters who don't think he belongs. Sorry. W"

Coming from one of Art's biggest supporters, this is crushing.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:47 pm

I posted a comparison of his stats with those of Largent, Loften, Swann, and Stallworth in this thread!

They are favourable. They compare well. The arguments put together by Peter K. can be dismantled one-by-one without too much problem.

Look TC, there is quite a bit of "horse-trading" in these sessions of the Committee. That means if somebody wishes to have his candidate inducted they lobby, trade, argue, etc with others. Peter K. and Paul Z. are the visible heads of the move against Art.

I bet anybody that if Joe Gibbs snd the Skins succeed big. I mean, if we win a Super Bowl within the next couple of years, Art's chances will grow enormously.

Right now, there are too many Skins-Snyder-Gibbs haters. I do not care if these journalists become bandwagon fans later that "always had faith in Gibbs and the Skins", as long as they induct Art.

What a shameful behaviour but life is a stink sometimes (after all this is a PG site if you know what I mean).

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:55 pm

Redskin in Canada wrote:After all this is a PG site if you know what I mean.

Yes, Post Mountie. I know what you mean.

Anyway, this was one of my ways. I decided to contact the voters I KNEW were good for a "yea", and both have said the same thing; Monk will never see the Hall under the watch of the current group of selectors. The feeling is that Rice has changed the position forever.
I agree that a SB victory here will help bring Monk back to the limelight, although I freely admit that I thought his selection to the "70 Greatest" would do the same thing.
It seems that there's a considerable sentiment among the voters that Art was simply "pretty good", not "great".
I need time to really reflect on this, and decide what my personal course of action will be.
I'm laying off the topic, for now. I need to try on the other guy's shoes and try to get a feel for what he's seeing that I'm not. It's the only way to attack the foundation of that view, in my opinion.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:18 pm

tcwest10 wrote:Anyway, this was one of my ways. I decided to contact the voters I KNEW were good for a "yea", and both have said the same thing; Monk will never see the Hall under the watch of the current group of selectors. The feeling is that Rice has changed the position forever.

Your way was a good way. Still is!!!

Does that mean that they are going to kick Loften or Swann out of Canton? This is so silly. One judges a player in the context in which he played.

tcwest10 wrote:I agree that a SB victory here will help bring Monk back to the limelight, although I freely admit that I thought his selection to the "70 Greatest" would do the same thing.

This is a life long cause. But I am convinced that people like you and I are here for the LONG haul.

tcwest10 wrote:I need time to really reflect on this, and decide what my personal course of action will be.
I'm laying off the topic, for now. I need to try on the other guy's shoes and try to get a feel for what he's seeing that I'm not. It's the only way to attack the foundation of that view, in my opinion.

I respect that. But think about it, most media types in that Committee are not Skins-Gibbs lovers, let alone Snyder. They can only be won with victories. We have been down for too long for those types to respect our team.

Make no mistake about it:

Art will be there and one day you and I, and whole bunch of other Skins fans will know that justice DOES prevail.

We shall never surrender!

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:27 pm

Lofton, I can't explain. Swann waited fourteen years to get in, so I dig that.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:34 pm

tcwest10 wrote:Lofton, I can't explain. Swann waited fourteen years to get in, so I dig that.

Is it my turn to make you take your mind off this topic?

How about fly-fishing or a great barbecue? :wink:

As long as it is NOT a swimsuit issue... :roll:

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:36 pm

I'm just being polite. Don't make me have to come up there and whip you with a fly rod.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Wed Feb 16, 2005 11:46 pm

tcwest10 wrote:I'm just being polite. Don't make me have to come up there and whip you with a fly rod.

So am I. But my idea of politeness does not involve any corporal punishment on my fellow Skins fans, particularly Art Monk fans. So, you are safe.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:00 pm

"Corporal" ? You're military ?

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:13 pm

tcwest10 wrote:"Corporal" ? You're military ?

I have worn many hats in my life. Many, many moons ago, I once held the rank of lieutenant in an artillery regiment.

So that rigorously speaking, I would not inflict any lieutenant punishment on any fellow Skins fan, let alone an Art Monk fan. :lol:

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:18 pm

Allow me to interrupt this love fest to present this quote re: Monk's snub, from today's DC Examiner. None other than Redskin great, Earnest Byner said the following:

[On Monk being snubbed] I wasn't surprised. It seems like he's the Susan Lucci of the NFL, a guy who led the league at one point in receptions, a guy who was involved in [four] Super Bowls. That should be easy. What else could he have done? I wasn't surprised, but I was disappointed. I I were in a similar situation as Art I'd be very disappointed.

Monk compared to a Daytime Soap Star??? Oh well, at least she finally won one. Let's hope Monk doesn't have to wait as long, though.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:14 pm

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:Monk compared to a Daytime Soap Star??? Oh well, at least she finally won one. Let's hope Monk doesn't have to wait as long, though.

For -ONCE- I will agree: Let's hope that the end is near for Art on his pilgrimage to Canton. :lol:

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:18 pm

Oh, admit it. This ain't your FIRST time, is it?. :wink: