Meh, goodie-two-shoes are overrated.
Matt hughes aint hitler. but he does sound like a ****. and its a shame because i quite liked him before. you hear this stuff about red necks and you figure its just the democrats and the liberal media. wow. there may be some truth in the redneck image afterall. but regardless of where he was born, its his attitude and actions as described in his book that i am reading now, that seem to suggest he is in fact a ****.
wow. matt hughes seems like a prick. and i actually quite liked him before.
Apart from the fact that the book was probably not written by Hughes, but rather by a ghost-writer (I'll accept that the writer was basing his testimony on Hughes' own view and that Hughes doesn't disagree with anything in the book, which seems fair to me).
ok so we have your ''E-testimony'' of one meeting
(unreliable, anonymous, probably biased , and in terms of actual worth irrelevant)
an expansive citable verifiable document, written by the guy himself on himself and his life story
(primary source, after the event, reliable evidence, biased towards the source it condemns)
historically speaking id say your meeting has little or no significance compared to an autobiography.
playing semantics over the word nice is one thing.
arguing with the legitimacy of the source or the existence of passages that strongly and unwittingly indict its own orator is bordering on bigoted ignorance to the facts of the argument.
If you think that reading a text of a person discussing their own life story is enough to come to a full indictment of that person as an enormous douche, then that's your prerogative, but to form a qualitative judgment about a person on the basis of a book seems more than a little juvenile.
Plenty of people come off as indicting themselves in discussing their own lives. Plenty of people are proud of things they probably shouldn't be. Plenty of people (especially those in positions to write autobiographies) are narcissistic. All of those things may be (and probably are) true of Matt Hughes.
But to insist that your lopsided, account of his character is based on "fact," as if there aren't facts to the contrary is pure nonsense.
Of course there are instances of Hughes being a dick (just like there are instances of you being a dick). Of course there are instances of Hughes being a nice guy (just like there are instances of you being a nice guy). The fact that, in your encounter with Hughes (in the text of the book), he comes across as a pompous blowhard does not speak to his general character, it speaks to your experience of the book. To pretend like its more than that is its own subtle and ridiculous form of narcissism.