I am responding to "Rudy Worshippers: Grab yourselves a nice fat portion of crow, and eat it." I apologize for starting a new thread in response to another thread. (Newbies, this is NOT how you do it.) But I have my excuse. That is, I am not responding to the thread itself. In fact, I haven't even open the thread to read any of its posts. I suspect that they are just same old blah, blah, blah. Maybe, maybe not. I am, rather, responding to the TITLE of the thread. More specifically, the term "Rudy Worshippers" is what I'm after. I want to get the terminology staight. Nobody needs to reply to my post. I just want to get this out, and hopefully you'll think twice before you label anyone. There is a difference between a "hater" and a "critic." A Rudy hater is one that hates him as a coach, and as a person. A Rudy hater is one that would call Rudy "idiot" "moron" "stupid" "clueless" etc. Besides, a hater would question Rudy's character as a person. A hater would make shots at him about his drinking problem, or accuse him of lying, deceiving, or things of that sort. A critic is one who respects Rudy as a person, but criticizes his coaching style or decisions. A critic doesn't think in blanket sense that everything Rudy as a coach does is wrong. A critic points at specific things he did or specific decisions he made, and makes specific alternatives that could be better. I believe there are many Rudy critics on this board. There are a few haters too. I respect the critics when they present facts to support their opinions. The haters I loathe . There is a difference between a "worshipper" and an "apologist." If you recognize the difference between haters and critics, you should have no problem understanding the difference between worshippers and apologists. A Rudy Worshipper is one who thinks Rudy is the best coach ever, or something close to that. A worshipper cannot find fault in Rudy, as a coach or as a person. A worshipper always assume Rudy is right. If there are indeed Rudy worshippers on this board, they aren't voicing out very much. An apologist, on the other hand, assumes that the coach knows what he is doing in general. The apologist understands that a coach's job is largely invisible to the fans and tries to understand why Rudy did something when it appeared to make little sense on the surface. Above all, the apologist respects Rudy T as a person. He might not always be right in his coaching decisions. But the apologist believes that Rudy is a decent coach in general and thus tries to defend him against undeserved bashing. I am a Rudy apologist. My assumption is that anyone who can make a living as an NBA head coach for more than 3 years cannot be an idiotic person in the literal sense. The assumption is that such a coach knows at least more about basketball than the average person, or even the average fan. I think the assumption is valid. If the coach is anything less competent than that, than it is really his boss who pays him is the idiot. . . and the fans who pay his boss. . . I am not responding to the thread because I am not a Rudy worshipper, nor is 99% of the cc.net members. So, who are they shooting at?
btw: it isn't "hater," it is "hata." It is more playful that way in the sense that you don't really "hate" the guy.
Guys, I've stated my reason for starting a new thread. If you don't agree with the reason, please say it, rather than just roll your eyes. If you don't bother to read on after the first line, then please don't respond.
I must confess... ...I'm a hater....of my TV. There have been times that the Rockets have tanked 15 point leads, racked up turnovers, and lost the game by 1.... ...all the while, Rudy sits on the sidelines yelling at the refs for everything other than our clueless offense and lackluster defense... ...Yes. I admit. I've wanted to bash my TV into tiny little bits and scatter the pieces with my cat's litter box. But, other than that. I love my Rockets.
They were being sarcastic because you didn't read after the first line of the thread you responded to. Just like when the TV says "knockin boots" or "let's go upstairs" it really means they're having sex....
AB, That's exactly the reason why I had a new thread. Notice in the first line I put that thread's title in quotation mark. And in the next paragraph I made it clear that I wasn't talking about what's inside the thread but only something in the TITLE. If I didn't read the thread and replied something IN the thread, that would have been a bad move. My post had nothing to do with that thread. I was prompted by the "Rudy worshippers" words in the title to vent my dislike of some labeling practices in the forum. Well, I can see that the first line was somewhat misleading. And I don't blame you for misunderstanding me.
Not that I want to pile on, but how can you know that if you have not even read it... Responding to your post, I would say I am a critical apologist .
Since you guys are responding to Easy, logically you should have read his entire thread. Y'all did open his thread and responded, right? However, Easy was responding only to the title of the other thread, obviously he didnt need to open that thread or make a response there. Why its so hard for y'all to understand?
