Jordan's Rants
7/15/12: Disturbed Writers Are Disturbed
Recently, I was involved in a war of words on twitter with a "writer" by the name of "Tim Graham" (I know, "who?"). If you could even call it that. It was more like a one-sided exchange that resulted in Graham blowing a fuse, demonstrating exactly why unstable people should not be allowed to write professionally for "legitimate" news sources.

To give you a glimpse into the mind of Graham, I suggest you read the following article from back in 2009, when Graham was still blogging for (a job he no longer holds):

In this article, we learn the following:

*Asking Owens if he and Lee Evans are being wasted in the Buffalo offense after a loss in which Owens caught 0 passes is not an inflammatory question.

*Asking Owens if he likes the plays that are called after a loss in which Owens caught 0 passes is not an inflammatory question.

*Asking Owens about Trent Edwards's decisions after a loss in which Owens caught 0 passes is not inflammatory, nor is it any attempt at baiting him into being critical of a teammate so they can then accuse him of throwing said teammate under the bus.

*If Owens doesn't provide the media with "insightful" responses to their questions, he is out of line.

*A reporter telling Owens, "you could say 'no' there," in response to the question about whether or not Evans and Owens are being wasted in the offense, is in no way out of line.

*The Buffalo media isn't a war zone, therefore Owens should feel safe to say whatever he wants to them, so long as it is "insightful." After all, it's not as though any other media members will be privy to such classified information. No way would numerous writers and talking heads see what Owens said in his post-game interview and lambaste him for it.

Come on, you know better than to think that would ever happen.

No, according to Graham, Owens is not holding up his end of the bargain unless he gives the media something juicy, and if he doesn't, this means he's a bad guy and deserves harsh criticism. He must sacrifice himself and his career for the good of Graham's story.

Talk about "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Graham's inane anti-Owens crusade even had the anti-Owens propaganda regurgitators scratching their heads. Like this guy:

Well, anyway...yesterday, after calling Graham on his idiotic blog post and tweets pertaining to Owens's child support issues, he began writing passive-aggressive tweets that were clearly aimed at me, carefully avoiding actually tweeting my handle or engaging in an actual argument.

Eventually, though, when another tweeter took my side in the debate, Graham melted down, launching a barrage of DMs at the other tweeter. This other tweeter emailed me these direct messages, and I thought I'd share them with you. This way, you can see exactly the kind of deranged individual we're dealing with, and it'll give me a chance to respond to a guy who blocked me (and apparently, this user as well) to avoid any more damage to his ego or ignorant beliefs.

Courtesy of Brian9ers4Life:

1. And that $400k came in three years from ESPN, not seven. Thanks for the follow :)

2. Their jobs have 0 to do with child support, F Lee Bailey. He made around $80 mil. That's what support based on. He doesn't get to blow it.

3. I will never respond to you on twitter. Keep screaming into your sad darkness.

4. Their jobs are irrelevant. Kids get percentage of his income even if their mothers make $150k a year. You amuse me. Thanks for the energy

5. Last thing ... Love your priorities. Manliness based on Twitter blocks, not paying your debts or taking care of your children. Bravo.

6. And now I'm going to block you. Thanks for putting a smile on my face and for the follow, however fleeting.

7. Because I enjoy you ... We're not equating what Chris Brown did. We're equating sycophants to sycophants. You are one. Paterno had them too

Apparently since Graham himself has multiple twitter accounts that he created to agree with himself, he assumes others must, too. Unfortunately for Graham, not everyone is as disturbed as he is.

Graham's replies, of course, demonstrate just how delusional and misguided he really is. Take DMs two and four, for example. Graham, with all the moral outrage of Chris Hansen in a Dateline NBC "To Catch a Predator" sting, chided Owens for "neglecting the mothers and children" by not paying child support that he clearly can no longer afford to pay. That is what I called him on. We all know they base child support requirements on percentage of parental income (income which, by the way, he no longer has, as he's out of work). That doesn't make it right. That doesn't make it fair.

That doesn't make Graham any less of an idiot for his sanctimonious criticism of Owens for being unable to make outrageous payments after falling on hard times financially. That doesn't make Graham's use of the word "neglected" any less ridiculous in the context of a man who has already paid over $1 million to 3 of the 4 mothers of his kids in the past 7-12 years, and over $400,000 to the 4th mother in the past 7.

It doesn't make him any less of a sexist in waxing sympathetic for these "neglected" mothers, who willingly had unprotected sex with Owens and are equally responsible for the birth of their children and their own "predicament." Mothers who don't work and are living off the outrageous sums of money Owens paid them for years on end for popping out a kid. Mothers who have all the reproductive rights in this country. Mothers who cancel trips for their kids to visit with Owens because he tells the mother he's only paying for his kid's plane ticket, and said mother can pay for her own ticket with the hundreds of thousands of child support dollars she's already using to support herself.

Spare us your tears, Tim.

Owens also never made $80 million in his NFL career. That number was completely fabricated (those who were paying attention may remember the media originally claimed he'd made $40 million, only to double that amount later). But Graham, like many, believes he's exempt from actually taking the time to inform himself on a matter before stating his opinion. This is why Graham, and many others, ultimately embarrass themselves when discussing issues.

Graham doesn't need reasons to hate Terrell Owens. He hated him from the very beginning, as was evident in his 2009 article. For Graham, it's personal. Only he knows why. But it's transparent, and it's pathetic.
Posted on Jul 15 2012 by Jordan Taber
E-mail: (optional)
Smile: smile wink wassat tongue laughing sad angry crying

Type oeE0n in the box: (anti-spam, case sensitive)
----- Spam Control: To confirm you are not a spammer, please write "hello" in the box below (without the quotes).

| Forget Me