clicheusername3
Banned
then why did he say "he'll go out on a limb"? That leads me to believe he was guessing.
Matt Perrault I know you hang out here
- Thread starter cliffjumper
- Start date
then why did he say "he'll go out on a limb"? That leads me to believe he was guessing.
IowaBanker
Well-Known Member
It's there, as I just searched the KXNO podcasts on their website. April 27, 2010 is the date.
He treated John Walters horribly and Walters absolutely put him in his place and made him look horrible.
PatrickAdamovicz
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute. Since when is the burden of proof on the accused in this situation (Stanzi). Matt made the accusation, it's Matt's job to corroborate his statement. Not the other way around.
Okay.. Yes, here it is
Media Player
I did listen to it... John did start out upset because he didn't like Matt's tone regarding the Hoiberg hire... Matt did try and bait him into going totally ballistic, but I think John realized what was about to happen... Unfortunately for Rob he didn't. It's funny because listening to both conversations today they are STRIKINGLY similar.
John did let his feelings for the Cyclones and Jamie anger him at Matt... obviously this is what Matt wants... luckily for John he didn't fall into the same trap as Rob Howe did.
SayHawkKid
Well-Known Member
How else could Rob defend Stanzi after Perrault did everything he could to convince listeners that Stanzi knew about DJK? Rob had already told Perrault that it was completely irresponsible to say that Stanzi knew about DJK without any proof to back it up, but Perrault would not back down from his statement.
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
My thinking has more to do with the age of the players. Makes more sense to me that players that are the same age would hang out a little more and probably know a little more as to what the guys their age are up to.....even if it's second hand knowledge. Who knows though.
WindsorHawk
Well-Known Member
This has to tough. YOU can't decide when the exchange ends. We'll be hammering you with facts for weeks to come and there's not a thing you can do about it. You have zero control. Zero!
clicheusername3
Banned
Maybe on Law and Order. Theres no more of a burden on the accuser or the accused to corroborate what they say on sports talk radio.
SteveGarvey
Well-Known Member
Matt,
Just apologize dude. You shouldn't have brought up Stanzi's name like you did. We've all said something stupid before and have had to apologize. You'd garner a lot more respect if you did.
Just apologize dude. You shouldn't have brought up Stanzi's name like you did. We've all said something stupid before and have had to apologize. You'd garner a lot more respect if you did.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
After listening again, Matt asked if the quarterback, or someone of similar stature would have been able to come forward about DJK (after Rob said it would be tough for a player to come forward with that, and rat out Iowa's all time leading receiver). After that, Rob said he'd go out on a limb and say that Stanzi and DJK don't hang out and Stanzi doesn't know what's going on in DJK's personal life. Then Matt retorted with: "Oh come on. See I don't buy that." And it escalated from there. Matt also said: "You don't think that DJK and his quarterback have a tighter relationship than with someone on special teams?" and "He was living with a kid that was convicted of having drugs on him. And you're telling me that nobody on that football team, the QUARTERBACK, who helped him set the record to be the all-time leading receiver at Iowa, did not know?"
Those two lines really highlight what he was doing. He specifically singled out Stanzi. Whether he phrased it that way initially doesn't really mean much. That's what he thinks, and he threw out on the air.
Those two lines really highlight what he was doing. He specifically singled out Stanzi. Whether he phrased it that way initially doesn't really mean much. That's what he thinks, and he threw out on the air.
For the simple fact that Perrault questioned whether Stanzi knew, and said I would be shocked if he didnt know. Not a fact to be disected and opinion. Howe stated as fact Stanzi did not know.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
The sad thing about all of this is Matt is getting exactly what he wants. He could care less who he tries to bring down, college kid or not. His ultimate goal is the almighty dollar and boosting his ratings. Go back and look at this first post....tells us how he is going to make $ for Jon.
Guys like Deace and Miller when on air did not need to abandon all character and class to get listeners to tune in and take notice. They were smart enough to engage guests and listeners without the shock jock mentality.
When someone questions a shock jock like Matt, you see what happens. He flips out, threatens the listener, and ends the call....then tells everyone how he got a text with bad language and plays the victim card.
Well done Matt, it is not easy for a guy to prove he could care less about his own character!
Guys like Deace and Miller when on air did not need to abandon all character and class to get listeners to tune in and take notice. They were smart enough to engage guests and listeners without the shock jock mentality.
When someone questions a shock jock like Matt, you see what happens. He flips out, threatens the listener, and ends the call....then tells everyone how he got a text with bad language and plays the victim card.
Well done Matt, it is not easy for a guy to prove he could care less about his own character!
He has never been about respect. That is clear.
PatrickAdamovicz
Well-Known Member
Yeah, he did state that, because Stanzi doesn't know. I say that because to this point, the facts that we have back that up. What I mean is we have no information to the contrary. You shouldn't have to defend someone being accused of something by a guy that doesn't know what he's talking about. The guy making the accusation is the one that had better have his facts in order before he starts slinging crap. I can't believe you don't understand the difference. Your using the guilt to proven innocent method. That's not how it works.
clicheusername3
Banned
Once again, this isn't a court of law. Give me one reason, beyond that you think this is how it is or how it should be, that someone making an "accusation" as you put it, has to bear the burden of proof.
hawkihayes
Well-Known Member
Matt, as I read through this thread I've yet to see you give any reasoning or backup for the Stanzi comment. I'd have respect for you if you'd at least give some in-site to why or how you came up with this line of thinking. Please don't float the "Well he throws TDs to DJK so he should have known". Remember that poking and prodding folks to lose their cool on the air doesn't bode well for longevity in radio. All you need to do is move up the radio dial and listen to another shock jock in this market to have your proof that style of radio doesn't work here!
Last edited:
And you are using a motto used to define our legal system and applying it to a message board post about opinions stated about a college football team. Im simply pointing out some hypocrisy. People are lambasting one person for stating an opinion , mind you never once did they say "Stanzi knew" or even " I think he knew", without having "facts" to base this opinion. Nevermind that an opinion is just that, non factual. But one person did state something as fact, and have no earthly way to back it up because it is impossible to know for a fact.
InNormwetrust
Well-Known Member
Maybe he put you on his ignore list, '20? Can't say I blame him for not wanting to get PWNED 2 times in one day
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
Probably dumb on Matt's part to not let it go. If he didn't mean to single out Rick, he should have clarified that. I still think this had more to do with Matt's tweets than anything else. Rob was not in a good mood and Matt wouldn't let it go. Sucks for those of us who like listening to Rob's insite.
