http://www.indy.com/posts/4021 en-us kimikokopuffs hyp·o·crite Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] -noun a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements. I admit. "Hypocrite" is a harsh word. But is there really a nicer way to say it? Granted, "hypocrite" has all sorts of heavy, unfavorable connotations. And I don't think that Dungy is a hypocrite exactly in that I believe that he stands behind those initiatives and beliefs, family values, etc. and I don't believe that he, in any way, feigns these things or puts on one face just for the public. But there definitely seems to be a conflict of interests between his words and actions. Then again, we ALL act hypocritcally at times and the reasons are no ones but our own. "Personal reasons" that Dungy does not wish to publicize and that Kravitz seems to fully support. No one can know the reasons why people do certain things. And who's to say what's a good decision or not. What's the greater good and for whom? I trust that Dungy did make the right decision for him and his family. After prayer and a lot of discussion between him and his wife, I'm sure, this is what they decided to do. We're all breathing a sigh of relief, but the topic, I think you're right, is fair game. And despite the word "hypocrite" I think Kravitz's overall tone and the way he addressed the issue was respectful and unaccusatory.It could have been much different, much harsher, much more of many things (all negative), but it wasn't. I hate that word. But what's the RIGHT word? Is there one? Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:15:46 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11924 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11924 joe.shearer I made a comment defending Kravitz yesterday, but after reading it again I think that while I understand what he said, I think he was overly harsh in his criticism, regardless of how much he disclaimed. I don't think the subject in and of itself is off-limits if presented in the proper forum and context, but wording it the way he did (and calling him a hypocrite) was out of bounds. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:59:16 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11921 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11921 kimikokopuffs I dunno. I think that Bob did this in a respectful enough way that Dungy already knew what Bob's concerns were, respected his opinion, and answered those concerns as best he could. Plus, Dungy doesn't seem the type of guy that holds grudges or would blacklist someone because his decision was questioned. Coaches of Dungy's caliber are used to much worse criticism and attack -- mean-spirited, slanderous accusations and commentary -- than the quite, understated "I just want to raise the question" column that Kravitz produced this week. I would posit that Dungy is a classy enough man that he even respects the criticism and concerns that Kravitz addresses. Afterall, they were the same concerns that Dungy himself is said to have wrestled with before making this decision. More thoughts here. Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:39:46 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11919 http://www.indy.com/posts/4021#comment_11919