Roland Martin vs. Dr. Umar Johnson

[Olorun22]

I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.

Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.

poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man

A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.

Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.

Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.

So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?

The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to raping of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.

 

[bambu]

It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable shit and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.

So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other shit it makes no sense.

Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.

And the niggas saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.

Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?



I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the fuck up.

His message consists of psychoanalyzing "black boys".....

I think educational attainment is applicable in this situation.....

 

[Olorun22]

Example: This woman comes to the black state of the union and States we need to stop with colourism in our community and She also says I love my black family. Y'all don't see a problem with this????

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.

Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.

poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man

A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.

Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.

Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.

So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?

The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to raping of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.

Bruh, your whole post is full of half truths and untruths. Its fair to say that the spectrum of shades in African Americans is due to race mixing, but even Africans straight from Africa came in different shades with some being lighter and others being darker.

Colorism is not a product of race mixing. It's a product of people putting a premium on lighter skin. Euros brought dark brown Africans over here and medium brown Africans over here. You don't think they were treating the lighter Africans different from the start?

And it's certainly true that nobody can claim that colorism is bad while subscribing to it, but it is untrue that everyone who gets involved in an interracial relationship does so because they prize lighter skin. Umar suggested the same thing, and stupid generalizations like that are part of the reason you have to take what he says with a grain of salt. He has some good points, but if you let him talk long enough he'll say some illogical shit to support his points.

 

[semi-auto-mato]

I'm enjoying the back and forth but I do want to say that a straw man argument was explained earlier.

Ex. Poster says umar is lying about his credentials.

poster said did he answer the question about his credentials? ...this is the straw man

A straw man is an argument to something not there. No one said he didn't answer the question. That is a fallacy so it makes the second post the straw man

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

He did do a strawman. He answer with obama and that's not answering my question.

Obama isn't the contributor of a black and white union he is a result of one.

Colorism is a direct result of race mixing and its a problem. You cannot as a black man\woman say we need to stop colorism in a interracial relationship.

So let me get this straight. So a black leader can say we need to eliminate colorism when themselves are practicing that same problem that they speak out against?

The reason we have so many lightskin people are do to raping of african woman and it's not that dark skinned people are produce light skinned people.

I wasn't directing my post at anyone. I was just saying cuz it keeps being said. I was just throwing the example out there.

Are u talking about the Obama meme? Did I miss something?

Now u do know u lose points for googling it. If y'all gotta Google it u shouldn't be saying it.

 

[Olorun22]

Bruh, your whole post is full of half truths and untruths. Its fair to say that the spectrum of shades in African Americans is due to race mixing, but even Africans straight from Africa came in different shades with some being lighter and others being darker.

How many light skin west african you seen that didn't have european blood in them?

The San people and who else? that really it

99% or african people are originally brown to dark. You acting like it's tons of original lightskin people in africa

Colorism is not a product of race mixing. It's a product of people putting a premium on lighter skin. Euros brought dark brown Africans over here and medium brown Africans over here. You don't think they were treating the lighter Africans different from the start?

"You too black" "pretty light skin girl" "I'm pretty because I'm lightskin" etc didn't exist until race mixing and that a fact

 

[Olorun22]

I wasn't directing my post at anyone. I was just saying cuz it keeps being said. I was just throwing the example out there.

Are u talking about the Obama meme? Did I miss something?

Now u do know u lose points for googling it. If y'all gotta Google it u shouldn't be saying it.

Yeah that obama gif. I gave you the original definition to let you know what I was talking about

 

[bambu]

His message consists of psychoanalyzing "black boys".....

N/h...

I think educational attainment is applicable in this situation.....

No straw man...

Niggas trying to skip that part tho.....

 

[Olorun22]

You would be hard press to find majority of black people down to fight white supremacy that will agree with interracial relationship.

lol Frederick Douglas was every bit as involved in the fight against slavery as Harriet Tubman, but he married a white woman, so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make.

There are good or at least understandable reasons why some are against interracial marriage. However, a lot of the reasons given are dumb. They usually boil down to charging every white person with being responsible for white supremacy, which is silly. Every white person is a beneficiary of white privilege to some extent, but not every white person is out their promoting white supremacy. Most whites aren't even in a position to do that with any effectiveness. The fact is a lot of people that are on this site have anti-white feelings and they believe those feelings are good reason tell other blacks that they shouldn't marry whites. Those anti-white feelings are understandable, but they don't make for a good argument against interracial marriage in general.

Fredrick Douglass was already explained now answer my first part

What explanation? That he was old? That he married a black woman first? Neither of those change the fact that he married a white woman.

And in this very video Roland Martin gave a laundry list of people who were instrumental in the fight against white supremacy. You dudes just like to dismiss them despite the fact that most of the people named struggled more in the name of black people than anyone on this site ever has and likely ever will. That's why this whole line of reasoning is bogus. There really has never been any era of struggle in the name of black rights where some of the people in that fight didn't end up marrying someone from the other side. Shit happens.

These guys are nothing but professional question Dodgers. All they want to do is straw mad and troll over the same issue that doesnt solves problems

 

[The Lonious Monk]

How many light skin west african you seen that didn't have european blood in them?

The San people and who else? that really it

99% or african people are originally brown to dark. You acting like it's tons of original lightskin people in Africa

lol I'm not acting like there are tons of original lightskin people in Africa. I'm rejecting you idea that "lightskinned" people are necessary for colorism to exist. It doesn't. All there needed to be is some black people that were lighter than other black people, and there would be a basis for whites treating some differently based on their skin tone. That's where colorism comes from and you can bet it was being put into practice before rape babies even became prominent in the Americas.

"You too black" "pretty light skin girl" "I'm pretty because I'm lightskin" etc didn't exist until race mixing and that a fact

What are you basing that on? You're just making shit up. Say you could rank skin tone from 1 to 10 with 1 being "light bright damn near white" and 10 being "black as night." Euros brought 10s over here and 7s over here. If Euros were letting 7s work in the house and making 10s work in the field, you don't think that caused dissension? You don't believe that led to color based identity problems? Again, as I've already pointed out. You see colorism in places like India and Southeast Asia where race mixing isn't even an issue.

These guys are nothing but professional question Dodgers. All they want to do is straw mad and troll over the same issue that doesnt solves problems

How did I not answer your question? Is this the new tactic, to ask a question, ignore the answer, and then pretend like no on answered you?

Why is it that @"Kwan Dai" is the only one on your side of the argument that actually argues points consistently? The rest of you just play these silly dodging games.

 

[Olorun22]

lol I'm not acting like there are tons of original lightskin people in Africa. I'm rejecting you idea that "lightskinned" people are necessary for colorism to exist. It doesn't. All there needed to be is some black people that were lighter than other black people, and there would be a basis for whites treating some differently based on their skin tone. That's where colorism comes from and you can bet it was being put into practice before rape babies even became prominent in the Americas.

Do you have any proof of this happening? If you have proof that brown and darker people have colorism issues in The BLACK COMMUNITY Let's see receipt.

What are you basing that on? You're just making shit up. Say you could rank skin tone from 1 to 10 with 1 being "light bright damn near white" and 10 being "black as night." Euros brought 10s over here and 7s over here. If Euros were letting 7s work in the house and making 10s work in the field, you don't think that caused dissension? You don't believe that led to color based identity problems? Again, as I've already pointed out. You see colorism in places like India and Southeast Asia where race mixing isn't even an issue.

Are you even black? What are you even talking about I'm making up those terms? Those are things that I personally witness in my life what people say and that is a result of colorism

Who care about what goes on india ? That's not my problem.

And my Argument isn't about colorism in asia and india. It's about the BLACK COMMUNITY and how its a problem for us.

 

[Olorun22]

Example: This woman comes to the black state of the union and States we need to stop with colourism in our community and She also says I love my black family. Y'all don't see a problem with this????

UMMMMMMMM

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Do you have any proof of this happening? If you have proof that brown and darker people have colorism issues in The BLACK COMMUNITY Let's see receipt.

I'm not sure how you expect me to prove that to you, but have you heard of the "Brown Paper Bag" test? You can go to West Africa right now and find pure Africans with skin tones similar to that of a brown paper bag. Seriously, if you're trying to suggest that colorism only comes in to play between the extreme's of the color spectrum within the black community, you're being intellectually dishonest.

Are you even black? What are you even talking about I'm making up those terms? Those are things that I personally witness in my life what people say and that is a result of colorism

Who care about what goes on india ? That's not my problem.

And my Argument isn't about colorism in asia and india. It's about the BLACK COMMUNITY and how its a problem for us.

Sorry, I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting that you were making up those terms. I was saying you were making up the idea that dissension like that didn't exist before miscegenation became somewhat prevalent.

And you don't have to care about India to see the similarities. Indians come in a variety of shades. They get conquered and ruled over by the British, and even now they have major colorism problems to the point where skin lightening is a common thing. Again, the origin of colorism is not interracial marriage. It's Europeans introducing the concept of "lighter skin being better" and the people controlled by Europeans subscribing to that concept in an effort for some to increase their stations. Just because your argument is about the black community doesn't mean you should be willfully blind to larger reality.

Example: This woman comes to the black state of the union and States we need to stop with colourism in our community and She also says I love my black family. Y'all don't see a problem with this????

UMMMMMMMM

I'm not really sure what kind of answer you want. Does her marrying a white man somehow make her wrong if she says we should stop with colorism? Did she marry that white man because she wanted lighter children? Is she treating the ligher children better than her brown skinned daughter? You're making a baseless assumption that she married that man based on colorist reasons and then making a judgement on her and her message based on your unfounded assumption.

No if she was running around talking about black love, then you'd have a point.

 

[blackrain]

It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable shit and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.

So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other shit it makes no sense.

Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.

And the niggas saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.

Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?

I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the fuck up.

How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?

 

[5th Letter]

Lol Niggas literally said that if you didn't contribute to his school proposal that you shouldn't speak on it, and I never said that anyone said Umar was beyond reproach. However, when you constantly go at people for voicing valid criticisms or concerns, you're clearly acting like he's beyond reproach. You're trying to force a square block into a round hole. If you disagree with something I say, address the point. Stop misusing logical terminology in an attempt to avoid having to make an actual counterpoint.

Aside from your stupid insistence on redefining what a straw man is, I mostly agree with you. It would be more productive for people to address his message rather than harp on credentials. However, if people think he is a liar and a conman, they are going to talk about his supposed lies and con. That's common sense. Your response is the same as that of the Trump supporters that were mad that people kept bringing up tax returns. Did you agree with them when they said people should leave that alone and focus on his message?

Because there were deflections being made using his school. And I never said that you said that I said that Umar is beyond reproach (we can play that stupid game all day smh) the main point of your argument has been you should be able to question him and his credentials, and I'm saying that you can question him but don't deflect from his message by bringing up stuff that's not relevant.

Obviously, some people believe the credibility of the messenger is relevant. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they are out of line.

And yes, my main point has been that people should be able to question him. And you can be obtuse and act like people not saying you can't criticize him means that nobody thinks that way, but if you niggas didn't have such a problem with him being criticized, this topic would have died long ago.

You've said that you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. They've said they won't. Niggas could have agreed to disagree on that point a long time ago, and steered the convo to the actual message, but you and others are stuck on trying to beat down niggas who don't agree with you about Umar's credibility and importance.

When discussing black empowerment and actually doing stuff for his community how does that make him questionable? If we're talking about psychology and stuff of that nature then it's fair to question him. How is this being lost in translation? You and certain others question him and others have the right to disagree. So what it comes down to is you want to say stuff and then if anyone responds to your point then that's caping?

Nothing is being lost in translation. No one on your side has articulated it like that before. Again, people on your side have literally said shit like "if you don't contribute don't say anything" and "he's about bettering the black community, if you can't say anything good don't say anything." Comments like that aren't in line with what you just said.

It's been pointed out several times in this topic that he uses his credentials to support some of the ideas he has to empower the black community and that's why his credentials are being brought up, so why do you keep acting like people are bringing them up when they aren't relevant? Can you post a specific example of a time when the credentials were brought up in response to a completely unrelated point? From what I've seen the credentials are usually brought up with the school. Some disagree with his views on interracial marriage, but no one is claiming that niggas should wife white women because Umar's degrees are fake.

Because (once again) the school comment was used as a deflection tactic to discredit, so the logic is if y'all didn't donate then shut the fuck up. If things weren't being lost in translation this back and forth wouldn't be happening now. Also (once again sigh) no one is saying or implying that you have to only say nice things about Umar.

And (once again sigh) when dealing with things involving his degrees/certification etc you can challenge his credentials it's fair game, but don't do it to deflect from his points or argument. The entire interview in the OP is an example of credentials coming into question.

 

[bambu]

Why is it that @"Kwan Dai" is the only one on your side of the argument that actually argues points consistently? The rest of you just play these silly dodging games.

These niggas like a broken record....

Except you can't flag em for spam......

 

[5th Letter]

It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable shit and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.

So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other shit it makes no sense.

Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.

And the niggas saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.

Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?

I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the fuck up.

How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?

Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.

 

[D. Morgan]

I like most of the shit Dr. Umar says and the shit he be on. Both sides of this argument agrees that nobody is perfect.

To lighten up the mood lets have a laugh. I thought this video was kind of funny

 

[bambu]

It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable shit and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.

So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other shit it makes no sense.

Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.

And the niggas saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.

Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?

I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the fuck up.

How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?

Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.

Umar says black people should _______.

Black people say wait....

What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????

Niggas be like....

"Deflection"

 

[5th Letter]

It didn't offend me...i said it was a stupid comparison to make because they have no correlation. Thinking what you said is stupid and being offended by it are 2 very different things. Bill Maher said something racist and stupid and shouldn't be given a pass. Umar has said some questionable shit and also touts credentials that haven't been able to be verified using the methods he himself suggested..but you're right this does seem to be a case of hit dogs will holler because you damn sure are hollering at any attempt to ask a question or want more clarification on anything he says just like folks defending their pastor/religion do when the hypocrisy of their religion is brought up like I also said earlier too.

So if it don't apply let it fly, you sure you weren't offended? Btw I asked you to answer some questions unless I missed it you haven't done so yet. But anyway if his message is solid what does his credentials have to do with anything? When it comes to the topic of things relating to his field then it's fair to question it. If the subject is psychology and you want to question his credentials then it's more than welcome to do so. But when he's speaking on black empowerment and y'all deflect into other shit it makes no sense.

Trust me it takes alot to actually offend me. You're confusing thinking what you said was stupid to mean I'm offended and that's a big reach to make. And again, his credentials matter when he's using them as the basis for some of his talking points. And idk if you've noticed but part of black empowerment is examining the psychology of the very people not only are you trying to empower but also that of those who you are trying to get from under as well...so once again his credentials come into play as they are a foundation for what he is saying.

And the niggas saying you shouldn't question anything about the school unless you're contributing to it or also doing work for the cause as if there also shouldn't be those whose job it is to watch over to make sure black folks ain't being taken advantage of and being sold a false dream under false pretenses.

Again if it don't apply let it fly. Instead you wanna sassy respond back to me like a chick. When he's using psychology then it's fair to question him but when he doesn't y'all still question him. That's the problem, why does his degree matter when discussing black empowerment and helping black people?

I've addressed the school funding before, since y'all used it as a deflection tactic then unless y'all contributed shut the fuck up.

How is discussing the educational background of someone trying to start a school and what they've done with money donated to start said school a deflection tactic? Deflection from what?

Umar says black people should ___, the response but but what about his degrees and donation money. That's not deflecting? I literally did it in this thread earlier to prove a point.

Umar says black people should _______.

Black people say wait....

What are your credentials for psycoanalyzing the black community?????

Niggas be like....

"Deflection"

When you talk about sports what's your qualifications have you ever coached or played professionally? See how that works?