shivers,tillman

[url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=2da4cad9-7079-4357-b898-35353ba9201e&p=1]http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/colu ... a9201e&p=1[/url]

Asked if he thought Tillman among the forces who worked for his dismissal, Shivers said: "Probably. He's good at that from what I understand. I really don't care. That's in the past

tillman responds

[url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=2462d606-107c-406b-803e-c0a2f45928dc]http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news ... a2f45928dc[/url]

I had as much to do with Roy Shivers' departure as I did Abraham Lincoln's assassination," Tillman, the Roughriders' general manager, said on the phone Friday. "In seven years, Roy's teams had one winning season, no home playoff games, no Grey Cup appearances and, of course, zero championships. That's undeniable

I don't know why Shivers would make a comment like that, ET's rep isn't the best, but Roy is totally out to lunch on that comment. Actually, that isn't the only bizarre comment he made in that interview-- bringing up his wife's race is another head scratcher :? ...

I think Shivers is angry at more than just getting canned from the riders. He must of gotten bullied when he was a kid.

I love Roy Shivers.

I love winning championships.

a battle between tillman and shivers is like a battle between rogers and godfrey.

Danny Barrett got Shivers fired. Not ET. Shivers brought in a lot of good players when he was here. But Shivers and his coach couldnt make them win. Shivers needs to shut up. Same for ET. Riders won grey cup last year and they are 8 and 2 this year. Tillman doesnt need to say anything. Just shut up. Let record say it all.

Look at Rider injuries this year. Riders are still winning. All of the new players like Walker and Dressler ET brought in. Shawntee Williams for Chick. James Patrick. Bowman. Marshall looks like a good wr. All rookies. Lions have 1 rookie I can think of. Logan. ET kicked Shivers butt finding players this year.

Shivers started the fight. But ET needs to shut up. He hired better coaches. Miller and Austin. He has the Rider grey cup ring. Riders have better record than the Lions this year to. Let Shivers talk. Just keep winning.

Sambo42, the words that indicate
Roy's wife is white aren't Roy's.

They are the words of the writer.

"My wife told me if I ever leave* again, that's it," Shivers said.

He and Carole have been married for 42
years. For what it's worth, she's white.


There are no quotation marks
around the second sentence.
  • leave there home in Henderson Nevada

Roy did get a condition in his contract
that allows him to work from his home.

P.S.

One strange thing about the comment.

was that the writer prefaced it
with, 'for what it's worth.'

Why did he include that phrase
and what does he mean by it?

Isn't that..."championship"? :wink:

You would have to wonder why the writer brought it up, because it should not make a difference. I would not doubt that Shivers is the one who metioned it first, so I consider that a comment made by Roy himself.

Exactly, Sambo. Why would it matter. Why does it matter to you? Enough so that you first call the comment bizarre, when it is not, and then, having discovered it was not a comment by Roy, you still feel the need to attribute it to him.

That is funny Moses. But 2 is championships. I was living in 1989 to. But that is funny.

Who asked Shivers all this B.S.?

like why is someone still trying to stir the pot here? Can't they just leave it alone already?

If the writer didn't have it mentioned it to him, I doubt it would be part of the article. Of course I'm speculating, but I wouldn't put it past Roy to insist that statement be included.

The only thing bizarre about that statement is your obsession with it. In the context of the article, it is an interesting aside that Roy married a white woman in 1966 America. For what it's worth.....

I did not find it interesting, I found it self-serving for the author and his subject to even mention it.

If shivers had made the comment himself, no way he would have included, for what its worth. In any case, unless something is quoted, it comes from the writer by default. For anyone to just assume Shivers said it is assinine. He may have, but thats not the way it is to be read.

Frankly, I'd be fascinated to hear your explanation of why you are so interested in that lone comment. Even if in the course of the interview, the fact that Roy's wife was white did come up, and the author decided to mention it, what is your big issue with that? It isn't like it is a big secret that Roy married a white woman. If Roy did mention it, we do not know the context of that conversation, but you seem to be reading something sinister into it. Share your thoughts on the matter.
Seriously, what about that comment has so piqued your interest that you use a word like "bizarre" to describe it? For what it's worth....

The article would have been fine, even better maybe if that sentence was left out. Who really cares if she is white, black, native or arab? For what its worth, my opinion seems to be rattling your cage for whatever reason... could it be that you are so into defending your buddy Roy, that it seems to be clouding your judgement? We disagree on this.. again. Leave it at that...

I am just interested in your interest. You obviously think that comment has some meaning to it. That it is important somehow. I just am curious about what you think it means. Personally, I think it is an interesting fact that a blackman, a social activist who grew up with founding members of the Black Panther movement, who has been an activist in the social rights movement his entire life is married to a white woman. For 42 years, Since 1966. In America---in 1966. It is an interesting sidebar to the story. It is pertinent. But you seem to see it as some sinister plot between Roy and the author. But you don't explain what that plot is. What is the problem?
Personally, for what it is worth, I think that the author mentions it in the manner he does to display the fact that in 2008, the fact that a blackman is married to a whitewoman is no longer enough of an issue to spend much time talking about it. It isn't important enough. It is no big deal. It displays how far we have come in 42 years.
The responses to that article on these forums however seem to indicate to me that we still have a ways to go.....