GatewayRedbirds.com

thrill wrote:Well you're not that far off base. I won't admit I'm wrong if I don't believe it. Neither will you, but that's your right and it's also why it's a compelling debate and I've been interested in continuing the discussion. I'll concede this, I do have a tendency to get really deep into semantics and I know that really drives some people up a wall. I can't help it though, I like really getting down to the nitty-gritty semantically.

Here's kind of a timeline of how I have felt recently:

[misc. times over the past couple days] "Calling out Strat? Complaining to Socnorb for using the word 'raping' in Baseball Talk? Saying someone 'doesn't doesn't deserve to ask questions or voice an opinion?' Damn, this dude obviously feels strongly about this Sandusky thing, he is downright belligerent of late!"

[30 minutes ago] "Thrill, you've been a pompous jerk lately, stop."

[20 minutes ago] "Holy crap, not only does he absolve himself of all blame, but he also has the nerve to say the people that were offended were the ones at fault because they can't properly comprehend a sentence. And he's totally polarizing my argument with a straw man! Urge to kill...rising."

[18 minutes ago] Contemplated editing the post where I used 'literally' incorrectly. Awaited a comment along the lines of, "nice picture JL, but the baby needs to be boiling in a pot to be a completely accurate representation."

[12 minutes ago] Spent this time packing my bags and contemplated running away -- or at least making threats to run away -- from GRB.

[8 minutes ago] Realized that I was raging over a ****ing message board argument. Unpacked bags.

[2 minutes ago] Realized I probably was misinterpreting thrill to some extent, and that he probably wasn't trying to be as pompous as I thought he was being.

[1 minute ago] Constructed timeline of events as last-ditch effort to salvage reputation and explain away Zambrano-esque meltdown.

Jocephus wrote:that said, i think this is all kinda silly and i dont think stlouie_lipp was rude to begin with.

He wasn't being overtly rude; consider how this discussion started. Here's what I said:

That attitude, which we've seen several times in this thread, is rude and completely unnecessary since we're on an internet discussion forum.

What attitude does that reference? Specifically that in order to comment on this thread or have a question concerning this topic you MUST read the grand jury testimony. Lipp was not the first one to suggest that; his post, as I've discussed with him via pm, was simply one more post echoing a line of thought (and one of the nicer ones) that I disagree with.

I patently reject the premise that posters on this forum should have "required reading" before anyone else can engage with any thread on this forum -- whether in comment or question form. I also feel that the underlying implications of that premise represent one of the biggest issues that have faced our rather unique community from its earliest days -- frankly, that people feel like they can't post on threads if they don't have a certain knowledge base and fear getting ridiculed if they do.

That's why I felt it was an issue that was worth taking up with the people involved, mostly by PM. And largely (because of pm conversations) I feel like the issue has been addressed and resolved to the extent that it can be.

I think if a statement is prepended with "Not to be rude, but ..." whatever follows is probably rude or will come off that way. Kind of like, "I don't want to sound like a queer or nothing, but I think unicorns are kick ass!"

Anyway, I think people are feeling passionate about this, which leads to lessened sensitivity. I do think there is an obligation to inform yourself before jumping in, but I didn't see Fat's question as outrageously ignorant either. If the statement were rephrased, "You really should read the grand jury report. As it says in there ..." I doubt this would have come up. Not really a big deal.

i understand what you are saying. but we have to remember, when one reads a forum they are possibly adding inflection(s) in their head that may not be what the forum member has written.

i should know as im terrible with this.

edit: and i would agree the sensitivity of the subject doesn't help.

Kyle wrote: [misc. times over the past couple days] "Calling out Strat? Complaining to Socnorb for using the word 'raping' in Baseball Talk? Saying someone 'doesn't doesn't deserve to ask questions or voice an opinion?' Damn, this dude obviously feels strongly about this Sandusky thing, he is downright belligerent of late!"


[20 minutes ago] "Holy crap, not only does he absolve himself of all blame, but he also has the nerve to say the people that were offended were the ones at fault because they can't properly comprehend a sentence. And he's totally polarizing my argument with a straw man! Urge to kill...rising."

HAhahaha...to be fair to you, I think this is a completely accurate representation of my behavior, I just don't think I was wrong. Ok, I'll admit I came too hard when slide asked questions/opined without reading the report initially. I stand by my opinion, but there were many better ways to say it without going full bore "your opinion doesn't matter." My righteous indignation dander was way up mainly because after spending hours digesting this story and then going to bed with images of dumb PSU students rioting in the streets, I was admittedly raring to go at anyone who's outrage wasn't as blindly committed as my own. I'll own that. As I've pointed out in the rants thread, this incident brought up memories of when my buddy and I had to flee a teen rec center because we were being harassed by someone who almost certainly was a pedophile as well as brought the memory of having to call DCFS on a camper's parents for her claims that her dad molested her when I was a summer camp counselor. Add on to this a story I recently learned regarding a casual acquaintance's son who was violently molested by her boyfriend last month and yeah, honestly, I've been really on the muscle on this one. Aggressively so.

jim wrote:You know the reasons we all admire those who go from bystander to hero in an instant? Because I think down deep, subconsciously, we know we are looking at ourselves and we like what we see. Human nature can suck, but it can be the most awesome thing in the world too. I really think the great majority of people would done the headbutt/jack-knife power bomb ... or at least tried.

I think it is because we HOPE that this is what we would do and want to identify with someone who actually did. I don't really believe anyone's predictions about what they would do. Unless you've gone through something similar, you have no idea. I'd like to believe that I would intervene, but maybe I would actually freeze up. How could I possibly know what I would do?

In any case, I'd be more impressed with the person who keep their wits, stops the rape, gets the child out, and brings the rapist to the cops than the person who loses it and starts throwing punches.

JL21 wrote:

haltz wrote:Do they have hospitals and ambulances in the dakotas? Kyle is literally boiling.

I definitely noticed that, but didn't want to be THAT guy.

I'm happy to help.

Arthur Dent wrote:Kind of like, "I don't want to sound like a queer or nothing, but I think unicorns are kick ass!"

I think we have found the common ground on which all posters in this thread can agree.

Kyle wrote:

thrill wrote:Well you're not that far off base. I won't admit I'm wrong if I don't believe it. Neither will you, but that's your right and it's also why it's a compelling debate and I've been interested in continuing the discussion. I'll concede this, I do have a tendency to get really deep into semantics and I know that really drives some people up a wall. I can't help it though, I like really getting down to the nitty-gritty semantically.

Here's kind of a timeline of how I have felt recently:

[misc. times over the past couple days] "Calling out Strat? Complaining to Socnorb for using the word 'raping' in Baseball Talk? Saying someone 'doesn't doesn't deserve to ask questions or voice an opinion?' Damn, this dude obviously feels strongly about this Sandusky thing, he is downright belligerent of late!"

[30 minutes ago] "Thrill, you've been a pompous jerk lately, stop."

[20 minutes ago] "Holy crap, not only does he absolve himself of all blame, but he also has the nerve to say the people that were offended were the ones at fault because they can't properly comprehend a sentence. And he's totally polarizing my argument with a straw man! Urge to kill...rising."

[18 minutes ago] Contemplated editing the post where I used 'literally' incorrectly. Awaited a comment along the lines of, "nice picture JL, but the baby needs to be boiling in a pot to be a completely accurate representation."

[12 minutes ago] Spent this time packing my bags and contemplated running away -- or at least making threats to run away -- from GRB.

[8 minutes ago] Realized that I was raging over a ****ing message board argument. Unpacked bags.

[2 minutes ago] Realized I probably was misinterpreting thrill to some extent, and that he probably wasn't trying to be as pompous as I thought he was being.

[1 minute ago] Constructed timeline of events as last-ditch effort to salvage reputation and explain away Zambrano-esque meltdown.

LOL. If only most message board users could do this.

(I don't mean here, as we do have a pretty good number of people that can do this. Thinking more of political websites and newspaper forums/comment sections)

I've found that posting "RTFA" is usually well received.