Jump to content

Shawn Bradley paralyzed....

Aqua Buddha

By Aqua Buddha
in Basketball

 Share

Recommended Posts

conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21469

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Was Tracy McGrady driving the car?

Too soon.  I’m a Mavs fan.  Shawn was picked on by everyone in the league.  He was an easy target.  He played basketball because he was really tall and made more money doing that than he could’ve made doing anything else.  He is also apparently a really good dude.  I hope he finds a medical miracle that allows him to find a little mobility.  They are doing some good things in that area right now.  I know someone who had a really bad fall and was paralyzed, and can now get around a little bit on their own.  It has made a huge difference in her mental outlook even if she won’t ever be what she was.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyle

Kyle 207

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 3/17/2021 at 9:33 PM, conVINCEd said:

Too soon.  I’m a Mavs fan.  Shawn was picked on by everyone in the league.  He was an easy target.  He played basketball because he was really tall and made more money doing that than he could’ve made doing anything else.  He is also apparently a really good dude.  I hope he finds a medical miracle that allows him to find a little mobility.  They are doing some good things in that area right now.  I know someone who had a really bad fall and was paralyzed, and can now get around a little bit on their own.  It has made a huge difference in her mental outlook even if she won’t ever be what she was.

Agreed. He took a lot of crap for being a big white (#noracist) stiff, but more importantly by all accounts a good man, which is really what matters. 

Edited by Kyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
idigTexas

idigTexas 2289

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Braff Zacklin said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-shawn-bradley-wasn-t-172400732.html

I hope you did not misinterpret the title without actually reading the article.  What a waste of words.  That's a fine example of shitty opportunist soapbox "journalism," and isn't about Shawn Bradley at all.  As a cyclist, I understand and agree with the point of the article, but not the way it was made. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Braff Zacklin

Braff Zacklin 13618

Posted
Posted
Just now, TommyGufano said:

https://www.joelindsey.com/about2

Is this guy that guy? I'm not sure his "about me" uses "accident" as precisely as his article would suggest it ought to be

LoL no idea, but that is somewhat amusing and ironic.

 Still, his point is valid. Why are motorists so often left off the hook when the incident involves a pedestrian or cyclist? If the crash had involved two cars, and one of them had been suspected of drunk driving, would the headline be, "Car accident leaves passenger paralyzed"? Doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26322

Posted
Posted

Heard about this a few days ago listening to The Musers. Really sad story. As others have said, he was a honestly good guy and unfortunately a target the whole time he was in the NBA. Hope that some sort of recovery is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexPx

TexPx 2323

Posted
Posted

Tried to find out if the driver was charged but haven’t found anything.

I’ve always thought the best way to commit murder and get away with it is to hit them with your vehicle.
Sun was in my eyes
swerved or stepped in front of me
foot slipped of the brake
etc.
If you are very unlucky maybe involuntary manslaughter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
idigTexas

idigTexas 2289

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, Braff Zacklin said:

I read the article and do not feel I misinterpreted anything.

Your condescending response, however, is puzzling. How and when should the author's point be made?

No condescension intended.  You just posted an article link with no context or comment whatsoever.  My first thought when I read the headline was, "oh shit, Bradley isn't actually paralyzed."  I thought you might have assumed the same thing and were rushing to get the news out there without actually reading the article itself, because, you know, that never happens.

As for the article, I already said that I agreed with the sentiment, but the author's blatant use of a misleading headline really rubbed me the wrong way in this instance, even if the intent was to increase page views of a worthwhile issue.  On the other hand, Bradley may actually be cool with it, wanting his misfortune to at least raise awareness.  If that's the case, then I'd be happy to issue a retraction.  If it was done without Bradley's approval, then I stand by my original statement. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Braff Zacklin

Braff Zacklin 13618

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, idigTexas said:

No condescension intended.  You just posted an article link with no context or comment whatsoever.  My first thought when I read the headline was, "oh shit, Bradley isn't actually paralyzed."  I thought you might have assumed the same thing and were rushing to get the news out there without actually reading the article itself, because, you know, that never happens.

As for the article, I already said that I agreed with the sentiment, but the author's blatant use of a misleading headline really rubbed me the wrong way in this instance, even if the intent was to increase page views of a worthwhile issue.  On the other hand, Bradley may actually be cool with it, wanting his misfortune to at least raise awareness.  If that's the case, then I'd be happy to issue a retraction.  If it was done without Bradley's approval, then I stand by my original statement.

Fair, and my apologies for misinterpreting your post.

As a recovering journalist, I can attest that writers don't always have much say with headlines. We can suggest one, but the copy editor/paginator has ultimate discretion. The web has changed things, however, in that headlines are no longer limited to a given length/typeface. But even if the title were his, I think the quotation marks should've tipped off what he was angling for.

As for the timing of the article--using Bradley's misfortune as an opportunity to heighten awareness of an important issue--I suppose that's being opportunistic in the strictest sense, but are not all goods and services distributed this way? Businesses are open during the hours that customers are likely to shop. Movie releases are timed to draw the biggest crowds (either straight up or relative to competition). And the neighbor's kid asks to mow your lawn during summer instead of winter. Why are you holding this journalist to such an extreme (and unfair) standard?

Should he have waited to make his point until there was no recent "celebrity" example? Or should he have cited an incident involving someone the general public had never heard of?

As for needing Bradley's permission to write an editorial piece, again, you're setting a standard that seems arbitrary and unfair. Bradley is/was a public figure. Columns are routinely written without a public figure's participation or consent. Do you require political pundits to obtain a politician's permission before opining on policy? Do you think blowhards like Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless wait for approval from Jerry Jones or Dak Prescott before ranting on camera before millions? 

Genuinely don't understand why you've taken exception to a relatively benign article, other than you possibly misinterpreted the headline, got a short ways into the story, realized it wasn't about what you thought it would be, and then decided to look for something to complain about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
idigTexas

idigTexas 2289

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Braff Zacklin said:

Fair, and my apologies for misinterpreting your post.

As a recovering journalist, I can attest that writers don't always have much say with headlines. We can suggest one, but the copy editor/paginator has ultimate discretion. The web has changed things, however, in that headlines are no longer limited to a given length/typeface. But even if the title were his, I think the quotation marks should've tipped off what he was angling for.

As for the timing of the article--using Bradley's misfortune as an opportunity to heighten awareness of an important issue--I suppose that's being opportunistic in the strictest sense, but are not all goods and services distributed this way? Businesses are open during the hours that customers are likely to shop. Movie releases are timed to draw the biggest crowds (either straight up or relative to competition). And the neighbor's kid asks to mow your lawn during summer instead of winter. Why are you holding this journalist to such an extreme (and unfair) standard?

Should he have waited to make his point until there was no recent "celebrity" example? Or should he have cited an incident involving someone the general public had never heard of?

As for needing Bradley's permission to write an editorial piece, again, you're setting a standard that seems arbitrary and unfair. Bradley is/was a public figure. Columns are routinely written without a public figure's participation or consent. Do you require political pundits to obtain a politician's permission before opining on policy? Do you think blowhards like Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless wait for approval from Jerry Jones or Dak Prescott before ranting on camera before millions? 

Genuinely don't understand why you've taken exception to a relatively benign article, other than you possibly misinterpreted the headline, got a short ways into the story, realized it wasn't about what you thought it would be, and then decided to look for something to complain about?

The quotes did tip me off, but only after I read the article.  I do not think that the average reader is going to notice the quotes beforehand, or that doing so will lead to an immediate understanding of the article's subject matter.  Obviously, a recovering journalist might think it more obvious.   

My issue is that I was initially expecting to learn that Bradley wasn't actually paralyzed or that the article would at least focus on him.  Other than a sentence or two, that's not at all what I got.  Also, it seems like a shitty thing to do to cash in on a celebrity's misfortune.  I understand that sensationalist and deliberately misleading headlines are nothing new.  That doesn't mean I have to like it, even if I agree with what is being said.  For me, the message gets watered down because of the bad taste in my mouth from being misled by the headline.  I want people on my side of the argument to take the high road, and not be compared to obnoxious assclowns like Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless.   

As for suggesting that the author needed Bradley's permission, that's not what I said or even implied.  I said that if Bradley was on board with his life changing event being used in this manner to increase awareness, then it would change my opinion.  That may seem like a semantic argument to you, but I see a distinction. 

Shawn Bradley's Life-changing Tragedy Highlights Continued Miss-use of the Term "Bicycle Accident" would have made the point.  Yes, yes, too wordy, but I'm not a journalist, not even a recovering one.  Shawn Bradley's Paralysis Wasn't Caused by a "Bicycle Accident"  would have been fine as well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Braff Zacklin

Braff Zacklin 13618

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, idigTexas said:

The quotes did tip me off, but only after I read the article.  I do not think that the average reader is going to notice the quotes beforehand, or that doing so will lead to an immediate understanding of the article's subject matter.  Obviously, a recovering journalist might think it more obvious.   

My issue is that I was initially expecting to learn that Bradley wasn't actually paralyzed or that the article would at least focus on him.  Other than a sentence or two, that's not at all what I got.  Also, it seems like a shitty thing to do to cash in on a celebrity's misfortune.  I understand that sensationalist and deliberately misleading headlines are nothing new.  That doesn't mean I have to like it, even if I agree with what is being said.  For me, the message gets watered down because of the bad taste in my mouth from being misled by the headline.  I want people on my side of the argument to take the high road, and not be compared to obnoxious assclowns like Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless.   

As for suggesting that the author needed Bradley's permission, that's not what I said or even implied.  I said that if Bradley was on board with his life changing event being used in this manner to increase awareness, then it would change my opinion.  That may seem like a semantic argument to you, but I see a distinction. 

Shawn Bradley's Life-changing Tragedy Highlights Continued Miss-use of the Term "Bicycle Accident" would have made the point.  Yes, yes, too wordy, but I'm not a journalist, not even a recovering one.  Shawn Bradley's Paralysis Wasn't Caused by a "Bicycle Accident"  would have been fine as well. 

There is so much hyperbole, contradiction, and faux outrage in your comments, all on account of you thinking the article was going to be about something else and apparently feeling stupid for it, it's hilarious.

Maybe pick up a Twitter handle and join the Cancel Culture. You seem perfect for it. Sorry dude, that's the best I got for you at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
UpperWestside

UpperWestside 6169

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/15/2022 at 6:00 PM, Beau Vine said:

https://www.si.com/nba/2022/01/12/shawn-bradley-paralyzed-bike-accident-daily-cover

 

Damn.

It’s too sad to read all of that because Bradley has always come across as a really nice guy. That said if you’re a seven footer living in or visiting Utah just don’t ride a bike. At least Bradley did not meet the same fate the great Mark Eaton did. That was another guy that no one had anything bad to say about. 

Edited by UpperWestside
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4doorsMoreWhores

4doorsMoreWhores 107

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just fucking tragic. I've read quite a bit on Shaun Bradley through the years and there's no doubt in my mind the guy is a first class human being. I remember reading a story about someone stealing his bike years ago. A bicycle custom built for 7'6" Shaun Bradley. A bike probably less than .01% of the population could even ride. I think it was eventually recovered but jesus that's up there on the all-time stupid crimes list.

Edited by 4doorsMoreWhores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...