Evander Kane arrested on misdemeanor charge for June nightclub incident

[Huckleberry]

saw the kane interview, I think he handled it quite well with reporters asking the same question 7x times.

Don't know how many times you can answer that, but he should have been prepared better to face those questions.

 

That is on his agent  and the sabres to do so.   Especially his agent should haven gone through some media training with him.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Huckleberry

[ubkev]

Actually he is a Leo.

Actually, he is a Cancer.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/fox59.com/2016/09/23/nasa-reveals-13th-zodiac-sign-and-now-your-horoscope-may-have-changed/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us

[OP Class '75]

Hmmm.

 

But that profile dates back to July 2011.

Don't post often, obviously - Only when something this important needs to be said.

[inkman]

Actually he is a Leo.

:Lol:

[Cereal]

Actually, he is a Cancer.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/fox59.com/2016/09/23/nasa-reveals-13th-zodiac-sign-and-now-your-horoscope-may-have-changed/amp/?client=ms-android-att-us

Whoa... crazy coincidence/timing... I am headed up to Toronto this weekend for an Ultimate Frisbee tournament where teams are determined by your Zodiac sign.  13 teams would surely throw a wrench in the tournament format.  Also, my fellow Virgos will be sad to learn that they are now Leo's :D

[LGR4GM]

If I ever had a hair of an opening to give Evander Kane another chance, that hair is gone.  It is time for him to go, PERIOD!!!!  I don't care the cost.  He is a Cancer, plain and simple, and his removal is necessary.  Cut Him!!!  His departure would be an addition by subtraction.

This isn't football. You can't just cut him. I also don't agree that he is a cancer. That room is well lead by other individuals. 

[JJFIVEOH]

Vogl with a take on E Kane in this morning's TBN. Solid stuff:

 

"If Kane was being honest with his answers and comments, he’s bordering on delusional."

 

Yawp.

What was Vogl doing at the club with Evander that night?

[LGR4GM]

What was Vogl doing at the club with Evander that night?

Huh? What does this even mean?

[JJFIVEOH]

If I ever had a hair of an opening to give Evander Kane another chance, that hair is gone. It is time for him to go, PERIOD!!!! I don't care the cost. He is a Cancer, plain and simple, and his removal is necessary. Cut Him!!! His departure would be an addition by subtraction.

Did he do something wrong to warrant being cut?

Huh? What does this even mean?

It appears Vogl knows something the rest of us don't. Unless, of course, he's just speculating which is pretty poor journalism.

[LGR4GM]

You know what, it's Friday. I'm not doing this today. 

[That Aud Smell]

What was Vogl doing at the club with Evander that night?

I know. It's almost like he had a take based on what's known and how E Kane spoke and acted.

It appears Vogl knows something the rest of us don't. Unless, of course, he's just speculating which is pretty poor journalism.

He didn't write it as a factual piece. It was a take. They're ubiquitous in modern sports writing. Maybe you've heard of them?

 

Anyhoo. Kane's non-verbals in that session were utterly dismissive of the situation. All things considered, a bad look from a guy who's becoming expert at them.

[JJFIVEOH]

I know. It's almost like he had a take based on what's known and how E Kane spoke and acted.

 

He didn't write it as a factual piece. It was a take. They're ubiquitous in modern sports writing. Maybe you've heard of them?

 

Anyhoo. Kane's non-verbals in that session were utterly dismissive of the situation. All things considered, a bad look from a guy who's becoming expert at them.

 

And people are taking it as fact. 

 

It's a dangerous step to take as a journalist. 

[That Aud Smell]

And people are taking it as fact.

 

It's a dangerous step to take as a journalist.

Who is?

 

No one.

 

Sports journos the world over engage in #hottakery.

[JJFIVEOH]

Who is?

 

No one.

 

Sports journos the world over engage in #hottakery.

 

Well, you did when you agreed with his Tweet. 

 

I hate to bring race into this, but it's odd the way people (journalists primarily) are hesitant to assume guilt in the black community until it involves women. Then it's all about the women.

 

Before you ask what that has to do with anything, Vogl's Tweet implied that's how he feels when he made the accusation that Kane is delirious in his thoughts. 

[Hoss]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what Vogl was saying. Kane didn't discuss the facts of his own situation yesterday and Vogl wasn't addressing anything Kane did not say.

Vogl appears to be specifically talking about Kane's insistence that this is becoming "more relevant each and every day if you look at the other sports."

 

Vogl, from what I can tell, is saying Evander is either just talking out of his ass or being delusional by saying that. It's not suddenly an epidemic of players being targeted in his sport or any other.

 

Kane's actual quote:

 

"Like I said, these things unfortunately happen more often than not and they're only becoming more relevant each and every day if you look at the other sports. For me it's just trying to stay away from that kinda stuff and kinda picking my spots better."

 

When asked if it's a small percentage of players that find themselves in these situations he responded: "I mean, I don't know the numbers so I couldn't comment on that."

 

https://twitter.com/Matt_Bove/status/778974400385282048

 

He's delusional if he doesn't think it's an extremely small percentage of players or he's flat out lying hoping nobody will notice. And it's an even smaller percentage of players who have found themselves in these situations twice in a matter of months. The number becomes almost absolute zero if you consider players who have found themselves in these situations twice in a matter of months and legitimately done nothing.

 

Vogl doesn't know what happened in the that night. None of us do. And none of us needed to be there to see through what Kane said. He shouldn't be trying to claim he's yet another victim. Keep deflecting and talk about hockey if you haven't been properly coached up on how to respond.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Hoss

[JJFIVEOH]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what Vogl was saying. Kane didn't discuss the facts of his own situation yesterday and Vogl wasn't addressing anything Kane did not say.

Vogl appears to be specifically talking about Kane's insistence that this is becoming "more relevant each and every day if you look at the other sports."

 

Vogl, from what I can tell, is saying Evander is either just talking out of his ass or being delusional by saying that. It's not suddenly an epidemic of players being targeted in his sport or any other.

 

Kane's actual quote:

 

"Like I said, these things unfortunately happen more often than not and they're only becoming more relevant each and every day if you look at the other sports. For me it's just trying to stay away from that kinda stuff and kinda picking my spots better."

 

When asked if it's a small percentage of players that find themselves in these situations he responded: "I mean, I don't know the numbers so I couldn't comment on that."

 

https://twitter.com/Matt_Bove/status/778974400385282048

 

He's delusional if he doesn't think it's an extremely small percentage of players or he's flat out lying hoping nobody will notice. And it's an even smaller percentage of players who have found themselves in these situations twice in a matter of months. The number becomes almost absolute zero if you consider players who have found themselves in these situations twice in a matter of months and legitimately done nothing.

 

Vogl doesn't know what happened in the that night. None of us do. And none of us needed to be there to see through what Kane said. He shouldn't be trying to claim he's yet another victim. Keep deflecting and talk about hockey if you haven't been properly coached up on how to respond.

 

No misunderstanding, that's exactly what I took from it. 

[That Aud Smell]

Well, you did when you agreed with his Tweet.

I agreed with his take. His opinion.

 

Agreeing with someone doesn't make what they said factual.

 

Hoss is doing work, too. Hat tip.

[Hoss]

No misunderstanding, that's exactly what I took from it. 

So how is that dangerous? He's doing what he's paid to do and what a TON of people who aren't paid to do it have done.

I agreed with his take. His opinion.

 

Agreeing with someone doesn't make what they said factual.

 

Hoss is doing work, too. Hat tip.

Agreed (but what you said still isn't a fact!).

 

And thanks.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Hoss

[JJFIVEOH]

I agreed with his take. His opinion.

 

Agreeing with someone doesn't make what they said factual.

 

Hoss is doing work, too. Hat tip.

I like to agree with facts. I guess that makes me different. That's why I don't jump to conclusions on sensitive matters such as race and harassment. I guess I give Vogl too much credit.

So how is that dangerous? He's doing what he's paid to do and what a TON of people who aren't paid to do it have done.

 

Agreed (but what you said still isn't a fact!).

 

And thanks.

Telling people he's delusional with nothing to base it on? I guess that's just modern day journalism.

[Hoss]

I like to agree with facts. I guess that makes me different. That's why I don't jump to conclusions on sensitive matters such as race and harassment. I guess I give Vogl too much credit.

 

Telling people he's delusional with nothing to base it on? I guess that's just modern day journalism.

To the bold: So if I said "peanut butter tastes good" and somebody agreed you could't do the same? Would their decision to agree with me make it a fact? That side of your exchange with Aud makes sense. You don't agree with facts, you agree with opinions. Facts don't need to be agreed with because they stand on their own.

 

On the bottom line: he's basing it on very obvious numbers. Kane's insinuation that he's just another victim in a massive problem in professional sports and denial to comment on whether it's an extreme minority because he "doesn't have the numbers" is delusional in many eyes.

Part of Vogl's job is to sift through what athletes say and to gauge his audience. In this instance he chose to say something because what Kane said is the only "dangerous" quote from the day. The athlete he's paid to cover said something questionable (at best). He's either just making it all up as he goes or he truly does believe something that simply isn't happening.

[JJFIVEOH]

To the bold: So if I said "peanut butter tastes good" and somebody agreed you could't do the same? Would their decision to agree with me make it a fact? That side of your exchange with Aud makes sense. You don't agree with facts, you agree with opinions. Facts don't need to be agreed with because they stand on their own.

 

On the bottom line: he's basing it on very obvious numbers. Kane's insinuation that he's just another victim in a massive problem in professional sports and denial to comment on whether it's an extreme minority because he "doesn't have the numbers" is delusional in many eyes.

Part of Vogl's job is to sift through what athletes say and to gauge his audience. In this instance he chose to say something because what Kane said is the only "dangerous" quote from the day. The athlete he's paid to cover said something questionable (at best). He's either just making it all up as he goes or he truly does believe something that simply isn't happening.

 

To the bold, if I said 2+2=4 and you didn't agree with me, does that make 2+2≠4 true?

 

You've made it abundantly clear your agenda against Kane, you're going to support whatever narrative makes him look bad. It's a shame you let feelings get in the way of impartiality. 

 

(Yes my font changed because I copied the ≠ sign)

Edited September 24, 2016 by JJFIVEOH

[Hoss]

To the bold, if I said 2+2=4 and you didn't agree with me, does that make 2+2≠4 true?

 

You've made it abundantly clear your agenda against Kane, you're going to support whatever narrative makes him look bad. It's a shame you let feelings get in the way of impartiality. 

 

(Yes my font changed because I copied the ≠ sign)

To the bold: Did you read a single word I said? "Facts don't need to be agreed with because they stand on their own." If you disagree with a fact the fact is not suddenly untrue, you're just wrong.

 

To the italics: Oh stop it, you. You're better than to just fall back on this and attempt to demean a conversation into banter about reputations. If I have an "agenda against Kane" then you have an agenda FOR Kane. That puts us both at the same table on opposite ends. Put the pitchfork down, pick up the salad fork and let's talk (if you want to, your choice).

 

Also: yes, I patronized you. You don't have to follow up by telling me not to.

[JJFIVEOH]

To the bold: Did you read a single word I said? "Facts don't need to be agreed with because they stand on their own." If you disagree with a fact the fact is not suddenly untrue, you're just wrong.

 

To the italics: Oh stop it, you. You're better than to just fall back on this and attempt to demean a conversation into banter about reputations. If I have an "agenda against Kane" then you have an agenda FOR Kane. That puts us both at the same table on opposite ends. Put the pitchfork down, pick up the salad fork and let's talk (if you want to, your choice).

 

Also: yes, I patronized you. You don't have to follow up by telling me not to.

 

It's no big secret that you're the most partial and biased person on this board when it comes to social issues.THAT is an opinion.

 

Vogl shouldn't imply that Kane is delirious because FACTS AREN'T COMPLETELY KNOWN YET. Not sure why that is so difficult to comprehend. 

Edited September 24, 2016 by JJFIVEOH

[Neo]

To the bold: Did you read a single word I said? "Facts don't need to be agreed with because they stand on their own." If you disagree with a fact the fact is not suddenly untrue, you're just wrong.

 

To the italics: Oh stop it, you. You're better than to just fall back on this and attempt to demean a conversation into banter about ANY ISSUE. If I have an "agenda against ANY ISSUE" then you have an agenda FOR ANY ISSUE. That puts us both at the same table on opposite ends. Put the pitchfork down, pick up the salad fork and let's talk (if you want to, your choice).

 

Also: yes, I patronized you. You don't have to follow up by telling me not to.

Hoss, I changed three words in your post. I think you have crafted an artful and universally applicable response for any web back and forth that I can imagine. (Taking no side in your current endeavor, by the way). Edited September 24, 2016 by N'eo

[Hoss]

Hoss, I changed three words in your post. I think you have as artful and universally applicable response for any web back and forth that I can imagine. (Taking no side in your current endeavor, by the way).

Indeed, this is the case. It's why I don't see a need to intentionally drag the conversation into that.

 

Edit (because JJ found this snarky and I didn't want N'eo to think I was giving him snark): I agree with your edit and your opinion on how your edit makes it universally applicable.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Hoss