Here's a direct quote from Brad Childress in today's Access Vikings Blog, responding to the infamous conversation between Housh and Jackson.
“It’s interesting because I can’t speak to any of T.J. Houshmandzadeh’s comments. But I’m the one who dialed the phone and put the phone in his hand and I listened to the conversation, which wasn’t more than, tops, a minute and 10 seconds. It was in our locker room. He handed the phone back to me and I had a dialogue about it and I could probably name the four conversations. I was there. I wasn’t patched into the conversation. So I’m not speaking for T.J. Houshmandzadeh, but I couldn’t paint that conversation in that litmus.”
As someone who thinks that words matter, and should be used accurately, I'm constantly impressed by Childress' utterly inability to speak in coherent sentences. One can "paint" a conversation a certain way. Or "cast" it in a certain "light" (which may be the word he intended to use, who knows?). But, Childress "paints" in "that litmus." A litmus test is a way of measuring the pH of a liquid, metaphorically, it can be used to talk about testing for the presence of something that is otherwise undetectable. But there is no proper usage known to humans of painting in litmus.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if it were just an occasional slip, or if they were buffered by an easygoing personality. But, I feel like every time I read a quote from Childress there are one or two sentences that simply baffle me. Not that he has to be a Rhodes Scholar. Most of the time, the stuff he's saying just isn't that complicated. But, his inability to speak straightforwardly simply adds to the impression I already have of him as a person who doesn't process the world the way the rest of us do, and who's ineffective as a communicator.