Gay lover??!! If he's gay then he'd have a gay partner!!
Oh what's the use...
Oh sorry I was unaware that 'partner' was the new PC term. Substitute any word you like in that sentence and the meaning does not change, unless you really mean partner, as in gay marriage, then that obviously wouldn't elicit the same public response as it would already be common knowledge. Coincidently, that is exactly what I recommended in an earlier part of this thread. But that type of disconnect often happens when the pieces of a post get separated from the context of the original comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
How could you be misunderstood?
I'll shut up now since this is exactly what I predicted would happen when I decided to post an opinion in this thread.
Whenever I hear about some prominent heterosexual "involved" with a member of the "opposite sex" I get a little queasy considering their choice to take a "lover" and involve themselves in a "tryst."
I recently watched an episode of "Jersey Shore", and I have to say I resent having the heterosexual lifestyle (which frankly appears to be kind of a horrorshow, although I'm sure the PC crowd will get on my case for saying so) pushed in my face. I think its fine what heterosexuals do in the privacy of their own (poorly decorated) bedrooms, or sweaty sex clubs, or "that part of town", just don't go around making a big deal out of it.
I don't understand what's the problem with being gay!
That makes two of us. I have a hard time believing that there are people who are truly sad enough to care about such things. There's not a thing in the world about a person's preference for a partner that could make them any less of a person...they're alive and have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else. (That's not anyone's invitation to start explaining "reasons". The implied question is rhetorical and you'll fall on deaf ears anyway.)
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
That makes two of us. I have a hard time believing that there are people who are truly sad enough to care about such things. There's not a thing in the world about a person's preference for a partner that could make them any less of a person...they're alive and have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else. (That's not anyone's invitation to start explaining "reasons". The implied question is rhetorical and you'll fall on deaf ears anyway.)
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
The article (this AI piece) actually doesn't state that he is open about his orientation at all, quite the opposite really. This is all based on rumor and speculative comments by unnamed sources. Which makes this AI article a piece of bad journalism IMO. Mr Cook is entitled to be whatever he wants, it's his life after all, but nowhere it seems has HE publicity stated his position. Therefore, I find it obnoxious that DED feels the need to "report" on speculative claims by what appears to be an unscrupulous organization. Whilst his article could appear to be neutral, because he is reporting what someone else said, there is no need to give any credence to this type of trash journalism. If Mr Cook had decided to comment in public then it would be different. Our standards continue to erode on a daily basis it seems. Journalists know to go to the source for information, clearly DED has not done that here.
Strange that this article seems to couch the things Cook does (works out early, efficient, requiring a relationship with a powerful character to get Cook to "blossom", so to speak, as if he couldn't do it on his own) as context for a gay lifestyle.
The real kicker of the piece, though, is the picture. Cook might be "unflappable", but what he's not is a charismatic leader. This, obviously enough, has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There's a reason everyone's wearing jeans in that shot.
Cook might keep the throne warm for Jobs' return, but I'm not sure he's the man to constantly reinvent Apple's products the way Jobs has.
Then this gay has been bottoming out all my stocks in this bear market all week. (see what I did there? )
PS: Jobs is still acting CEO, not Cook.
Not sure anyone got the memo that Jobs is acting CEO. I think people are still scared at the longterm outlook of a third leave.
Even the CEO change at Google ended up dropping there stock around 2.2% today.
However I think the Jobs situation is far worse for Apple. SJ has become such a cult like figure in the last 4 years. He was always a cult like figure to Apple fans but that base has really grown over the last 5 years.
Also fair or not SJ health give uncertainty and we all know the market hates uncertainty of any form.
Not that I plan on rushing out to sell my stock I expect this to all shake out before I retire in the next 20 years..lol.
I still find it interesting how you take the SJ news and put it in the same week as the earnings news and it trumps earnings.
The article (this AI piece) actually doesn't state that he is open about his orientation at all, quite the opposite really. This is all based on rumor and speculative comments by unnamed sources. Which makes this AI article a piece of bad journalism IMO.
Okay. Somehow I thought it did. Perhaps I misunderstood what was said and what was not. It wouldn't be the first time.
I won't get into the debate on DED's news reporting skills other than to say that he has written some articles that I found enjoyable and interesting.
Gay or not, he seems to know how to lead the team troops when Steve is unavailable. I am amazed that gender, race and sexual orientation are even an issue when assessing someone's ability to lead a company. People should be considered on their merits.
Most of us gays totally agree with you. We are not shocked when one of our own who finds himself or herself caught in the public media storm stays quiet and doesn't comment on such a private issue. We don't blast them for being ashamed because we understand that more often than not shame isn't the issue - it is rather the desire to be judged as a person and not stereotyped due to a single label
Unfortunately gay obsessed Ryan Tate disagrees and tries to turn everything into a major gay issue that the world has a right to know about. Even when he has zero proof of anything, including the sexuality of the person in question. I swear sometimes it feels like he is the one ashamed of being gay and is trying to make himself feel better by claiming all the cool kids are gay also (making him cool by association)
It's funny that most people who complain about having to be PC are simply assholes who don't like being called out for behaving like assholes.
Wow, I'm really getting behind the times here with the terminology. I also did not know that asshole is a new PC term for uninformed. Not sure if you were referring to my comment as a complaint or not. But to clarify, It wasn't.
Sure, but profiling a person and simply stating that they are gay is not and should not be considered embarrassing or an invasion of his privacy..
Now, if they were slandering him for being gay, and going on about details of his sex life and sexual partners, then yes, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.. Being gay is a big part of who a person is, and without being invasive or going into details, this article listed plenty of other things about his life... He is dedicated, he is a workaholic, he is a fitness nut, and yes, he also happens to be gay.. big deal..
You miss the point totally. Whether he is gay or not is irrelevant. The point is that AI is repeating gossip that he MAY be gay, which is pure speculation and that is absolutely wrong. I am not gay and I would be very upset if somebody went around spreading gossip that I was gay. If he is gay and wishes it to known fine but that should be his choice and his choice only.
All I care about is that he does a rest job at Apple, his sexual orientation is irrelevant to the discussion about how successful he is and will continue to be with Apple. I admire his ability and could care less about his personal life.
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
He's not open about it. Maybe with friends and family. But not in the public sphere. It's a rumor started by two of valleywags "sources." so they're effectively repeating gossip.
Hopefully that answers your question of why it shouldn't be reported.
Comments
Gay lover??!! If he's gay then he'd have a gay partner!!
Oh what's the use...
Oh sorry I was unaware that 'partner' was the new PC term. Substitute any word you like in that sentence and the meaning does not change, unless you really mean partner, as in gay marriage, then that obviously wouldn't elicit the same public response as it would already be common knowledge. Coincidently, that is exactly what I recommended in an earlier part of this thread. But that type of disconnect often happens when the pieces of a post get separated from the context of the original comment.
How could you be misunderstood?
I'll shut up now since this is exactly what I predicted would happen when I decided to post an opinion in this thread.
I recently watched an episode of "Jersey Shore", and I have to say I resent having the heterosexual lifestyle (which frankly appears to be kind of a horrorshow, although I'm sure the PC crowd will get on my case for saying so) pushed in my face. I think its fine what heterosexuals do in the privacy of their own (poorly decorated) bedrooms, or sweaty sex clubs, or "that part of town", just don't go around making a big deal out of it.
I'll shut up now...
Thank you.
Headline: AppleInsider poster addabox profiled as ?watcher of MTV?s Jersey Shore and Snookie?s biggest fan"
If only more Snookie fans would come out of the closet, people could see that......
Oh, who am I kidding? I'm a husk.
I believe I read that Steve is still acting CEO, he?ll just be working from home. IOW, Cook did not blow jobs from his CEO chair.
That's bad... really bad.
(and you thought nobody noticed)
I don't understand what's the problem with being gay!
That makes two of us. I have a hard time believing that there are people who are truly sad enough to care about such things. There's not a thing in the world about a person's preference for a partner that could make them any less of a person...they're alive and have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else. (That's not anyone's invitation to start explaining "reasons". The implied question is rhetorical and you'll fall on deaf ears anyway.)
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
It's obviously not.
Very puzzling, really.
Headline: AppleInsider poster addabox profiled as ?watcher of MTV?s Jersey Shore and Snookie?s biggest fan"
Well the most powerful gay man doesn't seem to be able to keep the stock up. Intersting trend this week.
Well the most powerful gay man doesn't seem to be able to keep the stock up. Intersting trend this week.
You know, I'm staring at that sentence trying to figure how it makes sense, from any perspective, and I'm failing.
Maybe it's just vaguely bad news for Apple, no matter how slight + whatever else was being discussed = something something something?
Well the most powerful gay man doesn't seem to be able to keep the stock up. Intersting trend this week.
Then this gay has been bottoming out all my stocks in this bear market all week. (see what I did there?
PS: Jobs is still acting CEO, not Cook.
That makes two of us. I have a hard time believing that there are people who are truly sad enough to care about such things. There's not a thing in the world about a person's preference for a partner that could make them any less of a person...they're alive and have thoughts and feelings just like anyone else. (That's not anyone's invitation to start explaining "reasons". The implied question is rhetorical and you'll fall on deaf ears anyway.)
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
The article (this AI piece) actually doesn't state that he is open about his orientation at all, quite the opposite really. This is all based on rumor and speculative comments by unnamed sources. Which makes this AI article a piece of bad journalism IMO. Mr Cook is entitled to be whatever he wants, it's his life after all, but nowhere it seems has HE publicity stated his position. Therefore, I find it obnoxious that DED feels the need to "report" on speculative claims by what appears to be an unscrupulous organization. Whilst his article could appear to be neutral, because he is reporting what someone else said, there is no need to give any credence to this type of trash journalism. If Mr Cook had decided to comment in public then it would be different. Our standards continue to erode on a daily basis it seems. Journalists know to go to the source for information, clearly DED has not done that here.
The real kicker of the piece, though, is the picture. Cook might be "unflappable", but what he's not is a charismatic leader. This, obviously enough, has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There's a reason everyone's wearing jeans in that shot.
Cook might keep the throne warm for Jobs' return, but I'm not sure he's the man to constantly reinvent Apple's products the way Jobs has.
Oh sorry I was unaware that 'partner' was the new PC term.
It's funny that most people who complain about having to be PC are simply assholes who don't like being called out for behaving like assholes.
Then this gay has been bottoming out all my stocks in this bear market all week. (see what I did there?
PS: Jobs is still acting CEO, not Cook.
Not sure anyone got the memo that Jobs is acting CEO. I think people are still scared at the longterm outlook of a third leave.
Even the CEO change at Google ended up dropping there stock around 2.2% today.
However I think the Jobs situation is far worse for Apple. SJ has become such a cult like figure in the last 4 years. He was always a cult like figure to Apple fans but that base has really grown over the last 5 years.
Also fair or not SJ health give uncertainty and we all know the market hates uncertainty of any form.
Not that I plan on rushing out to sell my stock I expect this to all shake out before I retire in the next 20 years..lol.
I still find it interesting how you take the SJ news and put it in the same week as the earnings news and it trumps earnings.
The article (this AI piece) actually doesn't state that he is open about his orientation at all, quite the opposite really. This is all based on rumor and speculative comments by unnamed sources. Which makes this AI article a piece of bad journalism IMO.
Okay. Somehow I thought it did. Perhaps I misunderstood what was said and what was not. It wouldn't be the first time.
I won't get into the debate on DED's news reporting skills other than to say that he has written some articles that I found enjoyable and interesting.
Gay or not, he seems to know how to lead the team troops when Steve is unavailable. I am amazed that gender, race and sexual orientation are even an issue when assessing someone's ability to lead a company. People should be considered on their merits.
Most of us gays totally agree with you. We are not shocked when one of our own who finds himself or herself caught in the public media storm stays quiet and doesn't comment on such a private issue. We don't blast them for being ashamed because we understand that more often than not shame isn't the issue - it is rather the desire to be judged as a person and not stereotyped due to a single label
Unfortunately gay obsessed Ryan Tate disagrees and tries to turn everything into a major gay issue that the world has a right to know about. Even when he has zero proof of anything, including the sexuality of the person in question. I swear sometimes it feels like he is the one ashamed of being gay and is trying to make himself feel better by claiming all the cool kids are gay also (making him cool by association)
It's funny that most people who complain about having to be PC are simply assholes who don't like being called out for behaving like assholes.
Wow, I'm really getting behind the times here with the terminology. I also did not know that asshole is a new PC term for uninformed. Not sure if you were referring to my comment as a complaint or not. But to clarify, It wasn't.
Sure, but profiling a person and simply stating that they are gay is not and should not be considered embarrassing or an invasion of his privacy..
Now, if they were slandering him for being gay, and going on about details of his sex life and sexual partners, then yes, I'd consider that an invasion of privacy.. Being gay is a big part of who a person is, and without being invasive or going into details, this article listed plenty of other things about his life... He is dedicated, he is a workaholic, he is a fitness nut, and yes, he also happens to be gay.. big deal..
You miss the point totally. Whether he is gay or not is irrelevant. The point is that AI is repeating gossip that he MAY be gay, which is pure speculation and that is absolutely wrong. I am not gay and I would be very upset if somebody went around spreading gossip that I was gay. If he is gay and wishes it to known fine but that should be his choice and his choice only.
All I care about is that he does a rest job at Apple, his sexual orientation is irrelevant to the discussion about how successful he is and will continue to be with Apple. I admire his ability and could care less about his personal life.
I don't know that I'd be so quick as to call AppleInsider's reporting offensive either. If Mr. Cook is open about his orientation (as the article suggests), what reason is there for not including such information in a news article about him...?
He's not open about it. Maybe with friends and family. But not in the public sphere. It's a rumor started by two of valleywags "sources." so they're effectively repeating gossip.
Hopefully that answers your question of why it shouldn't be reported.