Texas linebacker set for return trip to Fayetteville

http://www.wholehogsports.com/news/2018 … n-trip-to/

That Fayetteville $hî+ is ridiculous. I figured it would have ran its course by now but nope still pumping it out. By the way Richard I know it’s not you putting it in there.

Actually, you’d have to ask Petunia, but I think the following gives Fayetteville its own status as having a separate university other than the UoA: “University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Missouri, Texas Tech, California, Purdue, Boise State and Houston”? In other words the sentence is grammatically incorrect, IMO.

The crux of the matter is why do they persist in doing this when they know it engenders
anger and contempt from a sizable group of Razorback fans. There is nothing to gain in this stupid ploy. At some point, this will cost support to this organization in the one
area that will matter to them in lost revenue.
We can call it the Wally boomerang.

Exactly. The way it is worded in that story, it sounds like Arkansas and Fayetteville are two different schools. If they are going to add Fayetteville after The University of Arkansas, how come Columbia, Lubbock etc is not used for the other schools in the story? It is all about pissing off Razorback fans. Almost like they are trying to belittle the school as if people do not know that the University of Arkansas is in Fayetteville. Must be some D.A. Redpup fan behind it.

Wally has 0% to do with it.

Who does?

RD, I know it’s above your pay grade and generally do not get into this debate because it’s worthless. The old saying, “Don’t pick a fight with a guy who buys his ink in a barrel,” comes to mind. But I must agree that grammatically, it does look like Fayetteville has its own university when used in a list like this. Since it doesn’t appear to be going away anytime soon, maybe saying, “Along with the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, So-and-So has a offers from …” Of course, everybody who reads these stories know what is being written and knows what university is involved, but they’d say that’s exactly why the whole Fayetteville bit is unnecessary.

On another note, another good story and good insight. Thanks for your work. You have caught a lot of flak over something you can’t control. We shouldn’t overlook the rest of the content because of four words (or one word).

That’s what I’d like to know. Who is it that has told everyone to add Fayetteville?

Whomever sets the style guide, usually the Editor-in-chief, not a section editor.

Those who do know, won’t say. Why? Are they afraid of losing their job?

Who does indeed?
Fear is the tireless master.

Y’all are right that it is above our pay scale.

No one asked us what we thought.

It is not included in our stories on here unless they run in the newspaper.

As for the reasoning, it has something to do with the schools named Arkansas - those that are in Fayetteville, Little Rock, Monticello and so on - and somebody up at the top deciding that it needed to be differentiated.

I don’t like it one bit, but it doesn’t matter in this case as none of the writers have a vote in the matter.

I would only ask that you understand that and note that complaining to us is not going to help.

Also I have no fear in losing my job. Tha’s no way to live life. If it happens, it happens. I am far closer to the finish line than the starter’s block.

I believe you.

Still, the fact remains that someone made this call, and yet no one will name this person. If you’re being honest and objective - and I trust that you can be both - you have to see how it looks from our side.

And you will pardon me if I do not believe that no one working for the company knows who made the call. Especially since it is so unpopular with seemingly everyone that no one wants to claim it.

If the public knows the instigator, he/she will be made to know just how unpopular their decision was/is. I believe it is very appropriate for “us” to ask. Anyone who makes this type of decision, then will not own it, is a coward, plain and simple.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Whoever made this decision is not a UA fan for certain. It most definitely is a coward. Order everyone to put it in public print and then not being willing to own the decision publicly. That is because the coward knows it is unpopular among fans. I believe the reason given about wanting to put a city behind all the Arkansas schools was just a BS reason given so this person can carry out his anti UA agenda.

If you’re a true news person, you’re not a fan or foe of anyone you report on. I also highly, highly doubt this person is doing it because of an anti-Arkansas bias. It’s because he or she believes this is the best way to report.


I believe they are wrong, and would like to have the opportunity to engage in debate with “them” to see if we can come to a mutual understanding of who is correct. We may not, but I’d like that opportunity.

And I’m not alone.

The question remains - why is this person cowering in the shadows?

All decisions are made at the top or approved by the top.

Just like any other business.

That being said, I don’t know how the paper hierarchy works because I have nothing to do with that.

I’m just part of the online side.

Richard Davenport started a new thread for complaints about the UAF issue. He has published the email address for the person supposedly assigned to hear and handle our frustration and complaints about this matter. The thread is new as of July 11th. If they truly care about what the fan base thinks, they will listen and hopefully make appropriate adjustments. If they feel they are above their customer base, it will all fall on deaf ears and they will continue to impose their will on us of the under enlightened…

Go to Richard’s thread and then send an email with your thoughts on the subject. Here is our chance to find out if anyone really cares what the fan base thinks.

I’m not railing against Richard - just going to make a point.

If you will notice, in his post with the email address, Richard notes “Kim has nothing to do with the UAF policy, but is the one you can email to voice your opinion.

While I appreciate his effort, providing Kim’s email contact information does not really address the problem or answer my question. It still masks the identity of the person who DID make the policy decision. This “Kim” is just another employee paid to take the heat for someone else (still anonymous) up the line. Sending an email to her is really no different than posting something here. It is not the same as engaging and debating the issue with the person who made the policy.

Yet another act of cowardice from whoever is really behind all of this.