Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "Patrick Bet-David Responds To Jason Whitlock Calling Him Out" video.

I don't think that's possible. PBD was being the sort of slimy that got him to where he is, and Whitlock called him a "used car salesman" and said he had "feminine energy."
8
KNOWING that he was being slimy doesn't make him any better of a person in this situation.
6
Soltron Because what was agreed to was an interview - not a panel. Why would Jason ask if anyone else would be present?
6
Soltron Irrelevant. He agreed to do an interview - not a panel. As such he had no reason to comb through any subsequent correspondence looking for further details beyond travel, lodging and scheduling. Hell, even in the description here it's fairly obvious they kind of buried that little revelation further down in the correspondence. When you agree to a dinner date with details to come later, when that next message comes with the details, do you keep scrolling just to make sure there's nothing about the addition of a few extra people to that dinner, or do you just assume that these are details for the one-on-one you agreed to? Take care
4
Apparently not.
3
@desr421 Oh, I think Jason is a little precious when it comes to all the religion and claiming that too many things are "satanic." I only listen to maybe 1/3 of his podcasts because I'm not interested in most of what he's discussing. He claims humility while also claiming he's putting "fire" out there, then turns around again and criticizes a regular guest about "pride." But he's in the right on this one. The fact of the matter - which has never been disputed - is that he agreed to an interview - not a panel or debate. If they changed the terms later, they needed to confirm that the message was received and that he agreed to the new terms. That's how these things work when done honestly. It doesn't raise Jason's profile to get into this kind of dust-up with two people who are less famous than he is. I mean actual famous - not social media famous. Take care.
3
I can only encourage people to view/listen to Jason Whitlock's account (and response to this rebuttal), and compare it to what's being said here. Then decide who was being slimy and disingenuous here.
2
@southsideman4891 He also said that the piece with Whitlock was going to be an interview - not a panel. PBD says a lot of things, and I doubt many of them cast him in a negative light.
2
@apitterson17 Soutpaws are an affront to God! 🤣
2
@nezkeys79 I understand where you're coming from. But if someone was changing the basic terms of a deal you had agreed to, 1) wouldn't they be expected to do it somewhere more prominent than the fine print of a follow-up email, and 2) wouldn't they confirm you had agreed to the new terms before going ahead? That's another part that's getting lost here. You can throw all manner of things out there. You still need confirmation from the other party.
2
But we also recognize that there's a bit of used car salesman in PBD. It's very obvious even though there is plenty of straighitforward content. Even though we generally trust the channel to a certain extent, don't confuse that with blind belief. Anyone who has any sophistication when it comes to consuming information gets a bit of a "feel" from listening to PBD.
1
@medicisounds1384 He was told it was an interview. That's what they agreed to. Why would Jason expect anyone else to be on the show?
1
@medicisounds1384 Having multiple people at an interview on a podcast isn't unusual. It just doesn't change anything. Whether the podcast was a one-man show or a three-man show, we're still talking about the usual production v. bringing in clowns from the outside. Interviews don't involve the latter.
1
Yup!
1
Weird. I've been in the media for about 25 years and have never witnessed this. At least not in actual media. I guess it depends on what a person considers "media" as far as what they expect. That said, I've obviously witnessed a lot of shady sh!t. Just not this particular thing.
1
I think the thing here was that this was not an opportunity. Not as long as it was a panel with that troll present. It was doomed to be a sideshow of no value, just as it turned out to be.
1
@desr421 You don't knowingly have a sit-down with someone who has no interest in truth. And Jason DID sit with the man years ago, so he was very familiar with how this would go. Still, none of this has anything to do with he bait and switch they tried here.
1
@nezkeys79 His point is that there wasn't supposed to be a panel to begin with when the deal was struck, which no one has countered. I've got plenty of problems with Whitlock being a little too precious, but this one is pretty straightforward.
1
@nezkeys79 Normally I'd agree, but as I've plainly stated in some of the comments to this video, it was still on PBD's team to confirm that the person on the other end of the bargain approved of the change. Try unilaterally changing deals in other areas of life and see how that works. Take care.
1