Re: Next Year
No.
I gave a link in a thread at the time of the game, specifically highlighting a post from somebody who listened to an radio interview with Berry and came away convinced that the concussion was not severe enough to keep him out of the game. If I had the time, energy, and frankly interest, I'd try to dig up the interview itself. But honestly, it's just not that big a deal with me--I have no particular interest in either attacking Bohl or defending Stiegelmeyer. (Parenthetically, I personally have more of an issue with Stig's failure to detect Tom O'Brien's little problem in a timely manner, but that's neither here nor there nor anywhere else, other than to indicate that I in general don't think that anybody on Earth has walked on water for at least the last 2,000 years.)
But anyway, I looked around for a while for posts here from people who thought it was a bigger deal, didn't find them. Didn't do an exhaustive search, of course, could easily have missed someone. (I did note that I'm really not that engaged in the issue, didn't I?) I have no doubt given the general attitude of the folks around here that somebody would have posted "woah, wait a minute" at least; however our resident physician JackMD at the time, in the thread seemed to be relatively unconcerned.
However, since you seem to insist on your position, here you go:
You've been asked to provide rebuttal information, and other than "I think I heard Berry say otherwise" you haven't produced.
So, produce.
Or (I admit my preference here), just drop it as 'having had your say' and return to the topic of the thread.
Originally posted by TransAmBison
View Post
I gave a link in a thread at the time of the game, specifically highlighting a post from somebody who listened to an radio interview with Berry and came away convinced that the concussion was not severe enough to keep him out of the game. If I had the time, energy, and frankly interest, I'd try to dig up the interview itself. But honestly, it's just not that big a deal with me--I have no particular interest in either attacking Bohl or defending Stiegelmeyer. (Parenthetically, I personally have more of an issue with Stig's failure to detect Tom O'Brien's little problem in a timely manner, but that's neither here nor there nor anywhere else, other than to indicate that I in general don't think that anybody on Earth has walked on water for at least the last 2,000 years.)
But anyway, I looked around for a while for posts here from people who thought it was a bigger deal, didn't find them. Didn't do an exhaustive search, of course, could easily have missed someone. (I did note that I'm really not that engaged in the issue, didn't I?) I have no doubt given the general attitude of the folks around here that somebody would have posted "woah, wait a minute" at least; however our resident physician JackMD at the time, in the thread seemed to be relatively unconcerned.
However, since you seem to insist on your position, here you go:
You've been asked to provide rebuttal information, and other than "I think I heard Berry say otherwise" you haven't produced.
So, produce.
Or (I admit my preference here), just drop it as 'having had your say' and return to the topic of the thread.
Comment