HawkShack.com

There were others recieving the award today also but I remember Alan because of 2 things.

1. I loved the purple people eaters of the Vikings back in the mid 70's and was really disappointed in their 4 SB losses.

2. Years later, at the Marine Corps Barracks party in Kiev, Ukraine I met Alan. We had a very good talk there and he really struck me as a great man.

Congratulations to all the award winners and thank you for all your gifts to the American People.

idhawkman wrote:There were others recieving the award today also but I remember Alan because of 2 things.

1. I loved the purple people eaters of the Vikings back in the mid 70's and was really disappointed in their 4 SB losses.

2. Years later, at the Marine Corps Barracks party in Kiev, Ukraine I met Alan. We had a very good talk there and he really struck me as a great man.

Congratulations to all the award winners and thank you for all your gifts to the American People.

Nice topic, although I think the mods would have let you post it in the main forum.

I remember Alan Page playing with Carl Eller and Jim Marshall on those Viking teams of the late 60's/early 70's. They met their match in Super Bowl IV, though, as they couldn't handle the sophistication of Hank Stram's offense.

Page was a smart cookie, became a judge as I recall. Ain't no flies on that man!

RiverDog wrote:
Nice topic, although I think the mods would have let you post it in the main forum.

I remember Alan Page playing with Carl Eller and Jim Marshall on those Viking teams of the late 60's/early 70's. They met their match in Super Bowl IV, though, as they couldn't handle the sophistication of Hank Stram's offense.

Page was a smart cookie, became a judge as I recall. Ain't no flies on that man!

Not only was he a judge, he was a supreme court judge for the state of Minnesota for about 2 decades. He looked feeble as he accepted his award which was hard for me to see.

I was so impressed with the purple people eaters (predecessors to the Steel curtain). Really liked Chuck Foreman's running and Fran's scrambling. I was so sure they would win all four of those games but was disappointed each time. When I mentioned it to Alan at the Marine Corps Barracks, he said to, " you think you were disappointed, how do you think we felt - always the bridesmaid and never the bride?"

**I didn't post in main forum because it isn't Seahawks related since none of them were Seahawks **

idhawkman wrote:Not only was he a judge, he was a supreme court judge for the state of Minnesota for about 2 decades. He looked feeble as he accepted his award which was hard for me to see.

I was so impressed with the purple people eaters (predecessors to the Steel curtain). Really liked Chuck Foreman's running and Fran's scrambling. I was so sure they would win all four of those games but was disappointed each time. When I mentioned it to Alan at the Marine Corps Barracks, he said to, " you think you were disappointed, how do you think we felt - always the bridesmaid and never the bride?"

**I didn't post in main forum because it isn't Seahawks related since none of them were Seahawks **

I guess I remember him being on the state Supreme Court. I knew he served as more than just a justice of the peace, but I wasn't sure in what capacity.

By the time Fran Tarkenton did his 2nd tour with the Vikings in 1972..he was traded to the Giants and played for them from '67-'71...he was no longer the same scrambler he was in his first stint. Joe Kapp was the Vik's QB for SB IV. But you're right about Chuck Foreman. He was a big, Calvin Hill-like running back.

Bud Grant was never able to adapt to the changing nature of the game. In SB IV, the Vikings did not even put a man in motion during the entire game and their defense was totally confused with all the different formations and movements that the Chiefs went through.

One of my favorite players from that team was a backup defensive lineman named Bob Lurtzuma (sp.), "Benchwarmer Bob", whom the Seahawks selected in the expansion draft.

I can't believe the Washington Post just called Trump a racist for giving Elvis the medal of Freedom posthumously. This is way out of bounds - the media is simply obsessed with trying to find anything to criticise him over.

idhawkman wrote:I can't believe the Washington Post just called Trump a racist for giving Elvis the medal of Freedom posthumously. This is way out of bounds - the media is simply obsessed with trying to find anything to criticise him over.

You're going to have to be a little more specific. I googled "Trump Elvis Washington Post" and came up with this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 0e0aeb35e5

Is it that op ed that you are talking about? If so, then what part of it are you saying that the author is accusing Trump of racism?

RiverDog wrote:You're going to have to be a little more specific. I googled "Trump Elvis Washington Post" and came up with this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... 0e0aeb35e5

Is it that op ed that you are talking about? If so, then what part of it are you saying that the author is accusing Trump of racism?

Now I know you are just trying to get a rise out of me. Someone like you that doesn't read any emotion, tone or other inference into written words without an emoji to let you know how to read it you can't honestly read the title of that article and the first three short paragraphs and not know the answer to your question.

No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. You're suggesting a motive that doesn't exist. I meant exactly what I wrote and nothing more.

You have this habit of making a statement without providing links or direct quotes and leave it to the reader to assume what it is you're talking about. I was simply trying to get you to clarify your remarks so we could have a decent discussion.

Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.

RiverDog wrote:No, I wasn't trying to get a rise out of you. You're suggesting a motive that doesn't exist. I meant exactly what I wrote and nothing more.

You have this habit of making a statement without providing links or direct quotes and leave it to the reader to assume what it is you're talking about. I was simply trying to get you to clarify your remarks so we could have a decent discussion.

Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.

And the piece was approved by the editors at the WoPo.

idhawkman wrote:And the piece was approved by the editors at the WoPo.

Yes, the WP does have a liberal slant to them. No argument there. Home of Ben Bradlee, Bob Woodward, and Carl Bernstein.

Now that we've cleared up what article it is you're talking about, is there a specific phrase within it that you can refer to that accuses Trump of racism?

RiverDog wrote:Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.

Pretty slanted? Thinly veiled? I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

is there a specific phrase within it that you can refer to that accuses Trump of racism?

It's cliche'd clap-trap so I didn't read it closely, but I don't think there's a paragraph in there that *doesn't*, even if just indirectly.

idhawkman wrote:And the piece was approved by the editors at the WoPo.

And they wonder why Trump gets so much mileage out of his 'enemy of the people' stuff, and why nobody takes charges of racism seriously anymore.

Give a posthumous award to Elvis Presley? Let's write a 500 word essay on why UR RAYCISS. Because Trump and stuff.

burrrton wrote:[i"]Assuming that the article I linked for you is the one you referenced, I would tend to agree, it does seem pretty slanted and at the very least, highly opinionated (however it does indicate that it's the author's opinion). He does make some pretty thinly veiled suggestions of racism.[/i]

Pretty slanted? Thinly veiled? I honestly can't tell if you're serious.

I was being a little bit generous, but I did say "at the very least", which IMO is pretty damning.

But thinly veiled is a good description IMO. The article didn't actually accuse Trump of racism, but they clearly were leading the reader to that conclusion. Thinly veiled seems the perfect term.

is there a specific phrase within it that you can refer to that accuses Trump of racism?

It's cliche'd clap-trap so I didn't read it closely, but I don't think there's a paragraph in there that *doesn't*, even if just indirectly.

I was trying to engage Idahawk. I wanted him to give me at least one example. It's a fair request.

RiverDog wrote:I was trying to engage Idahawk. I wanted him to give me at least one example. It's a fair request.

I don't mean to buttinsky, but what he replied was accurate- there is literally no rational way to read the headline and first three paragraphs and miss the accusation. It's not veiled in any way, shape, or form.

If you don't see it, fine, but I don't think anyone else missed it.

burrrton wrote:I don't mean to buttinsky, but what he replied was accurate- there is literally no rational way to read the headline and first three paragraphs and miss the accusation. It's not veiled in any way, shape, or form.

If you don't see it, fine, but I don't think anyone else missed it.

What headline? He didn't post a headline, a paragraphs from the article, nothing except for his own opinion. I had to find the article myself.

My responses has more to do with posting style than it does content, ie that we start referencing statements with links and/or quotes rather than forcing the reader to find the article and the quotes within them. We seem to be having a little difficulty communicating, ie not being able to detect sarcasm, hyperbole, etc. I was trying to be polite about it, but now you're throwing fuel on the fire so now I suspect he'll react very negatively, which wasn't my intent.

I had to find the article myself.

Ah. Gotcha.

For someone who takes only the literal word you might want to re-read the post that I made and then tell me why I needed to link any article at all. I made a statement of fact. If you wanted the background of that fact, that is up to you.