Rock Candy

They only care about making millions of dollars to fill the pockets of everyone at the university. They pay no taxes since the sports is connected to the u of a but then they say they are not connected to the u of a when it comes to sharing the money with U of A. They know the insane fans will pour their money out to watch them no matter if they win or lose.
Sports is the worlds highest religions...

I am amused at the righteous indignation by those who are poor-mouthing Wally for actually showing a little gumption. They're calling it "irresponsible journalism" and the like, acting as if the author has committed some grievous wrong by daring to take some shots at Coach Teflon.

Tell me, folks, where was all this reproach when Houston Nutt was being coddled and suckled by the Arkansas media for the first several years of his very average tenure? Why wasn't it "irresponsible journalism" for virtually everyone in the fourth estate to nuzzle up to Dale Nutt, Jr. and befriend that hokey charlatan as if he was a drinking buddy?

Nutt has been protected on high for far, far too long. Kudos to Wally for joining Brummett and others and daring to dismiss the ruse of innocence.

I am amused at the righteous indignation by those who are poor-mouthing Wally for actually showing a little gumption. They're calling it "irresponsible journalism" and the like, acting as if the author has committed some grievous wrong by daring to take some shots at Coach Teflon.

Tell me, folks, where was all this reproach when Houston Nutt was being coddled and suckled by the Arkansas media for the first several years of his very average tenure? Why wasn't it "irresponsible journalism" for virtually everyone in the fourth estate to nuzzle up to Dale Nutt, Jr. and befriend that hokey charlatan as if he was a drinking buddy?

Nutt has been protected on high for far, far too long. Kudos to Wally for joining Brummett and others and daring to dismiss the ruse of innocence.

Yo Scott. I listened to the call-in, bud, and Mr. Hall sat there speechless. Don't' take my word, listen to it yourself.

I'm not moved by who's a millionaire, who is pulpiteering, who has been kissing Nutt's posterior for decades, or a talk show host who babbles inanely.

What DOES move (yes, appall) me is a columnist who writes a column (called "Like it is") launching an unprovoked attack on another individual, be that a coach, or even you Scott. And especially, an attack with no sources the columnist is willing to identify.

"Like it is" implies that what the columnist is writing is irrefutably true, and that he's checked out and confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt that what his "sources" have alleged is true. Mr. Hall has not done that. And I predict he will not do so. Rather, he will hide behind the excuse of "protecting my sources" as to why he remains silent. This has become a common "out" for irresponsible journalists who get themselves into hot water these days.

Unless Mr. Hall can back up as true every allegation he has made, I would file a libel suit against him were I Houston Nutt. And if Mr. Hall ever pulled an unethical stunt like this on you, Scott, I'd contribute to help defray your plaintiff suit expenses.

The inflammatory, irresponsible column authored by Mr. Hall is serious matter. It goes far beyond the personalities involved, and far beyond whether one likes or dislikes Nutt or Mr. Hall. All of us had better think this one through before we jump to the defense of Mr. Hall or any other journalist who acts in a manner so irresponsible as this. After all, any one of us could be a similar target some day, my blogger friends.

And John Brummett? Hell, he's an old grouch who doesn't like ANYBODY. But not even he would have penned a column like Mr. Hall's. Brummett is far too rational to do something like that.

Consider me unimpressed by your continued clamoring for a more ethical journalist. What Hall wrote had factual basis, or at least he said so Friday on the call-in show and then again in today's column. And, as you undoubtedly know, truth is a defense to the very libel suit you claim Houston Dale Nutt should bring.

I think you would also be advised to "think this through." Wally Hall makes six figures and has a public reputation to uphold, regardless of what you may think of the quality of his writing. He stands to lose a lot more by writing a defamatory column than Houston Nutt does by sweeping a lot of his well-documented shenanigans under the rug.

The column wasn't "unprovoked," either. Nutt has spent years taking shots, ranging from subtle to brazen, at the media, former players, bloggers, message board posters, etc. who don't routinely buy into his hackneyed, aw-shucks-I'm-just-a-good-Christian-man-who-loves-the-helmet routine. When his recruiting class fell apart before his own eyes this year, he took it upon himself to take a shot at the media for being the culprit. This is how he rolls, to use the parlance of our times.

Unless you can factually dispute the items Hall penned, your plaintive wail for a libel suit is of no more credence than the column you claim to abhor.

You and the six-figure-salaried sports columnist win and are correct on all counts, Scott. Please forgive me for all I've said. It is a curse being as naïve and stupid as I, a curse I pray God will spare you.

Just trying to engage in honest and forthright discussion, durangokid. You assumed I didn't hear Hall's comments, and not only did I listen to them live, I heard them replayed three or four times. I'm unconvinced that Wally just sat there and chose to let Houston liberally fire away at him.

You don't have to be a smartass. I entered the discussion with earnest and well-founded points. If you have no rebuttal other than to crack wise, then that's certainly not my fault.

From your post, dated 11:56 a.m., Feb. 7: "Wally didn't "[sit] there speechless," according to reports I have heard."

Reports "I have heard." Yep, based on those words, I assumed you had not heard Nutt's call-in firsthand. What else could I or other readers have assumed?

As for whether Mr. Hall just there in silence, you see it one way, and people like Brummett and me see it another way. According to Brummett, in his column of Feb. 12: "Wally just sat there mousy and shaky-voiced, except after Houston hung up. At that point Wally pronounced all brave-like that he stood by what he wrote."

But, hey, at the end of the day, what difference does it make, and who cares?

I do not question that you have attempted to engage in honest and forthright discussion with earnest and well-founded points. You strike me as a sincere guy who is writing with conviction and from the heart, and for that I applaud you. However, there is a hint of counterproductive hostility in some of your offerings. Calling me a smart ass is an example of that.

Perhaps I misperceived you as a "smartass" when your first post in reply, directly to me, began with "Yo Scott" and cordially encouraged me to "listen to the call-in, bud." I guess that didn't exactly drip with sincerity, so I replied in kind. If that smacked of "counterproductive hostility," I am guilty of partially sabotaging my message and I regret that.

The point from the get-go wasn't for me to throw my weight behind Wally. I don't care for his columns generally and I typically don't find common ground with him when the subject is Razorback football. However, his column last Friday struck a chord with me because, for the first time, a member of this state's pandering media (some would say the biggest member of the Arkansas sports media) used his position to do something other than lap up H. Dale Nutt, Jr.'s incessant stream of crap. I applauded that, and to wit, I don't suspect there's any libel unless Hall some kind of career suicide fetish. But I suppose you could indeed be right.

My written word was evidently unclear when I said that I had "heard" reports about Hall being silent. What I was told by someone with knowledge of the studio that morning is that Wally basically bit his tongue and was pretty angry about the call, and saw nothing to gain by trying to go toe-to-toe with Houston on the air. My suspicion is that he was correct: had he sniped back at the highly-paid football coach, point by point, he probably would've taken even more criticism for daring to butt heads with such an esteemed public figure on the air. But again, that's more conjecture.

In the end, I've enjoyed the discussion. I simply think there are some contextual things at issue here; namely, I think that Nutt was owed a bit of come-uppance from those that have usually and incestuously embraced him, and so I was just happy to see somebody like Hall take the initiative.

Wow, it smells in here, two lawyers stinking up the place. An old doc once told me, "if you fight with a skunk, you wind up stinking".

I'm not sure who should have taken the advice first, Wally, Houston, Frank, or the hapless sheep that constitutes the hopeless Razorback nation. Perhaps more lawyers can help us sort out this mess.

Hey, arktiger, here's a piece of lawyerly advice for you: blow me.

I'm not an attorney but I'd love to know what sort of exalted profession you occupy. Let me guess...you sell insurance?