Ya know, W0lf, I haven't posted very much for a few weeks, but it occurs to me that what you've just written really isn't so different from what big city wrote and what Blade wrote about a month ago... all of which was consistent with this from about a month ago concerning the choices before us...
Here are the options:
1) On board with the program, total sellout no matter who is the coach
2) On board with the program until Sep 5, and after that, on a game-by-game basis
3) Not on board with the program until there is a coaching change at the end of the season... and therefore, taking all actions within their power to suppress season ticket sales and recruiting success so that the Snyder era can completely implode in 2009.
(Not surprisingly, big city's, Blade's, and to some degree your own post, haven't met with 100% enthusiasm. And, too, it's funny to see some of the critics to big city and Blade now lap dog to your side as-if this is what they were thinking all along.)
So... here we are a month later, and amen to what you said, amen to Teke said, and amen to what 65 said, especially the idea of taking a time out.
Only one caveat to 65's comment, which is that, as I've made the point before, this is a different environment, so there are different rules for engagement. I wouldn't talk to a radio talk show host in person the same way that I would over the phone... there's a higher toleration for conflict (though still within some boundaries). Don't know why, never really thought about it, but there is. I would still be relatively polilte, but I would not feel compelled to treat that person like a personal friend... when you've got about 60 seconds to say something cogent, and especially if you disagree with the host, it's not really productive to focus too much on avoiding hurting the host's feelings.
There is also a natural higher level of toleration when the other person is not a personal friend, but merely someone out there who writes an opinion. Conflict with personal friends is much more restrained, as it should be. I'm sure I'm not alone that there are people here who were friends before there ever was an internet, and a few with whom I've gained a friendship outside of this or other boards as a direct result of discussion... if we disagree, I respond to them sometimes very differently because there's something more valuable to me (the friendship, obviously) than making my point.
But as Teke intimated specifically, the foremost guideline that should govern us regardless of whether we're arguing in-person or on the phone or by written words is that
it is never okay to reduce the conversation to an insult contest, like a bunch of middle schoolers wrestling for the next higher rung on the social ladder.
The poster simply has to be their own best editor, and at some point before clicking that "Post" button, needs to re-read what they said to filter out or re-word those parts that are merely childish insults about the other person (name calling being the most obvious form of that), and ensure that their comments regard the validity or invalidity of the CONTENT, not the validity or invalidity of the person(s) takiing an opposing position.
Of course, there are people who will consider what I just said to be hypocritical. They see me how they see me, and part of how they see me is that I don't filter my words in that way.
First, I would say, let's assume that I am a hypocrite... that may make the messenger illegitimate, but does it make the message illegitimate? No it doesn't. It makes the message less effective for a drunk to tell people to not drink and drive, but the standard itself is not any less valid. It is still right.
But second, I know very well what I do and what my standards are when posting things here and elsewhere. Similar to W0lf, I am the founder and for its first two years, ran a sports internet board, so I've even had to carefully think about and write standards for this kind of thing. I am not flippant about posting, and if I gravitated away from my standards at any point, it was rare... and would owe the person to whom I was replyhing an apology, for sure.
I will call no one not so smart (or other name), though certainly, there are people I consider to write a lot of things that aren't well-thought-out. Besides the immaturity of the name calling, the people who are idiots are going to be seen for what they are, and other readers need no labeling from me to help them come to the same conclusion.
I will, however, tell someone that what they wrote makes no sense... they themselves are not not so smart necessarily, but anyone can write something idiotic at some point.
And when that happens, they SHOULD be called on it. And when they're called on it, it's my belief that analogies are among the best ways to clearly characterize the idiocy of the other side's argument.
(Which is where, I'm sure, a lot of people have taken offense--but that is creatively and thoughtfully attacking the other argument, not attacking the other person).Like I told someone about a month ago...
At some point, it would just be fantabulous if [certain posters] would realize,
"Hey, ya know, when I have nothing better to offer in terms of a counterargument, I tend to just take aim at the person I don't like who is communicating the message I don't like."
... and recognize the fallacy in the idea that that's a valid response in a legitimate debate.
My three (typical) cents. Have a good day, all.
Home
Help
Members
View the memberlist
Search For Members
Login
Register