Over the years, the great intellectual thinkers would routinely engage in robust debate, a critique of one another’s work in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
I’m reminded of Nietzche’s writings on Richard Wagner and the squabbles between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung over human psyche and the unconscious mind. There was also that one time back in the 1600s when Galileo clashed with the Pope over the topic of Heliocentric writings, which were deemed by the latter party to be heretical.
One of the most important and scholarly feuds of our time is Crossing Broad vs. Mike Missanelli, and Thursday I went on Mike’s show to defend Doug Pederson and explain why his Brett Favre non-comments were blown out of proportion by the media:
It was a good battle. I think it’s very clear that I won the debate, though Mike did a great job.
Again, Doug Pederson is not beholden to some set of arbitrary rules created by the Philadelphia sports media. He does not have to answer a question to the media’s satisfaction; he is allowed to answer however he would like to answer. Saying that you respect somebody’s opinion is well understood to mean that you do not necessarily agree with that person.
Furthermore, Doug Pederson is not required to “defend” his quarterback in order to satisfy a fake set of guidelines. It’s not the job of the media to lead someone in any specific direction. Plus, the guy is a football coach, not a wordsmith.
Now it’s time for lunch: