die cowboys die wrote:now, let's see what out-of-context quotations people want to extract from this and beat me down with...
It's ironic that you say that, because the only quote that you pulled out of my post. . .
dcd wrote:Irn-Bru wrote:...never contributes any substance...
...you only serve to broadcast your own ignorance. i see this cheap excuse tossed around often as a way to escape the unassailable case against brunell (and consequently, gibbs' indefensible support of him) that has been compiled on this board. not every post i make is some kind of substantial analysis of the situation-- that has all been handled at this point, the case was closed long ago. so yes, most of my posts at this point are about my current emotions about the situation- but make no mistake, those emotions are the result OF the facts, the substance, that i (and others) wasted countless hours establishing.
. . .did exactly that. What I said (and was intentional in saying) was that you seemed to be "
someone who finds a way to make a sarcastic joke in every thread but never contributes any substance
in those same posts." (Notice how the bold words completely change the context / meaning).
Show me a single sarcastic hit-and-run post that contributed anything to a thread other than turning the attention back to your own hatred for Brunell. The best you can say about them is that they are funny (if you like predictable, broken-record one liners. . .but doesn't that wear out even after 11+ weeks?), and the worst you can say about their intensity/frequency is the kind of thing that THN members are starting to speculate about.
You've got other posts where you actually bring out substantial arguments, but the vast majority of references to Brunell deal with some combination of his arm strength, choice in receivers, age, faith, or Gibbs' opinion about one of those things. It doesn't matter how a thread starts or what the topic ought to be, THN members are likely to see the old obligatory, fill-in-the-blank potshots.
dcd wrote:as for the pissing contest--
what is not admirable is when some people continually assail the merit of others' "fanhood" just because they have different ways of expressing it. not all of the "Gibbs Gestapo" are guilty of this, but it is quite pervasive nonetheless. this "i'm a better fan than you" nonsense is for children. regardless of whether you disagree with my views on the team, please stop and consider this.
I'm fairly confident that I've never questioned the "fanhood" of a fellow THN member. However, I'm going to call out
behavior that seems inappropriate. It's the difference between an action and a person. This is the same principle that, on THN, is what seperates attacking a post as opposed to a post
er.
Both sides of any debate over ettiquette do this--it's the reason why we are debating in the fist place! Your accusations that fans have blind or misguided hope are also judgements on their expression as fans; your critique of their anger at fans who boo are--ironically enough--also judgements of fan behavior. (And, to get confusing for a moment, my critique of your critique of my critique of your posts are judgements, as would be a critique of yours against my critique of your critique of my critique of your posts. . .)
Call "sanctuary" in your fandom if you want, but it's a two-way street. You can be a fan any way that you want, but I'm going to scratch my head when your "expression" of love for the team includes calling for the firing of Joe Gibbs, calling him insane, saying that he's out of touch with reality, saying that the prospect of booing this team is what keeps you going, that fans should boo the Skins offense whenever it's on the field, that Mark Brunell is trying to wreck our season, calling for physical harm to come to Mark Brunell, and so on. (Again, how could you expect a different reaction?)
Show me where I'm saying that you, the person, aren't a fan, and then we'll have something to talk about. . .otherwise you're a pot calling the kettle black.
haven't you all ever noticed that the so-called "negative" fans you constantly disparage have been nearly universally more mature on this issue? you may disagree or even hate everything else they say, but i can recall scant few incidents where someone accuses someone of "being a bad fan" because they somehow stand behind gibbs despite his support of brunell. and trust me- in our minds, anyone who gives any defense of this is absolutely complicit in the destruction of the team. yet we understand, you want to have hope, you want to believe gibbs is still what he was 20 years ago. go ahead. i hope he will be. i believe that you are hopelessly deluded, but i hope i am wrong. i won't lambast you for wanting to believe that.
Honestly I haven't noticed what you seem to be observing. I think that fans on both sides of the debate get a bit ridiculous at times. Your definition of "maturity" probably differs from mine, though. . .
dcd wrote:so why must you accost us when we voice our opinions/feelings about the team? to me, being accused of not being a redskins fan
IS a "personal attack".
Let's suppose that I got on the board and starting posting things like "I hope that the Skins lose this week," or "I'm really pulling for a terrible performance by our team (or player
x)," or "I love it when the Skins lose," or "I can't wait to rub it in Gibbs face that his team sucks," or some other nonsense. . . .but that at the same time I also call myself a Skins fan.
That's a hypothetical situation, but sadly the kinds of things that I've seen on the board are not far from what I just wrote above. Again, I'm fairly confident that I've never accused someone of lying about being a fan; however, I can see where members come from when they point out that if it looks and smells like anti-Skins garbage, there's good reason to think that it is.
