You won't see me asking for proof of an opinion. You'll see me criticize an opinion (with facts or logic) if I think it's meritless , but you won't see me tell you that shouldn't post it because it's irresponsible. SEe the Astros thread and Lil Francis for an example.
i was thinking about that very thread. i completely disagree with Lil Francis...I think he's flat out wrong about AE. I think AE is hands down the best SS in the league. I think it's crazy to consider that Jeter is a better defensive SS than AE. but that doesn't make Lil Francis "irresponsible" for thinking it and/or posting it! that's absurd.
So you're agreeing that those quotes were about Carr? And that this ultra-definitive statement then is false? no current or former players, coaches or executives have EVER - let me stress that: EVER - made or even hinted at players being dissatisfied playing with david carr. not a single one.
again...last time...follow along: IT WASN'T A STATEMENT OF FACT. IT WASN'T A CLAIM. IT WAS CONJECTURE...OR OPINION. It's not IRRESPONSIBLE to suggest that players might not want to play with DC, anymore. You're not "bringing up the level of the board" by discouraging people from considering that possiblity. Sorry. You're not.
msn, i never attacked YOU; i attacked the assumption/argument/reasonable possibility - whatever you want to call it. it is B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T.
I apologized about that post. I said I was wrong. Now, why are you also contending that I made some claim? It's truly frustrating to me. People I've never met are questioning my personal integrity and character because they say I made a "claim" or "argument" that's irresponsible, when I did not to that. For the 100th time, I said, "think" and "might". Beginning with that comment, and with tons of help from Ric, I've managed to derail and destroy this thread. I regret that. But, it's no fun being accused of crap you didn't do.
from Major's last post: So you're agreeing that those quotes were about Carr? And that this ultra-definitive statement then is false? no current or former players, coaches or executives have EVER - let me stress that: EVER - made or even hinted at players being dissatisfied playing with david carr. not a single one.
I think you're all taking it a little too seriously. You've locked into one freaking word out of however many pages there are and run with it. And if I'm saying that, then jeez.
yeah...we're "bringing down the board." Ric is here to save it. to get rid of the irresponsible posts. add lazy to the mix of words. from Ric's post to Major that helped kickstart this: i have, major - that we, as fans, can do better than this; that we can raise the level of discussion w/o having to resort to such LCD-baiting tactics. it's easy, it's lazy and its irresponsible. what's wrong with challenging people to raise the bar so that those who want only to spill more stupidity and vitriol can't join in the chorus?
Now you're changing the argument. Are we arguing about the use of the word irresponsible or are we now defending the opinions made that you argued didn't need to be proved?
I'm fine if you think it's bull****. But, you went far beyond that. Read your own posts. You got personal. I'm sorry I got personal back. And this "assumption/argument/reasonable possibility" quote of yours--you're still avoiding the point. Those things are DIFFERENT. I (here I go again) did not post that comment as a fact I believed were true. And yet you treat me as if I did and you've, based on that untrue assumption, implied some quite ugly things about my character.
i'm not changing anything. i stand by everything i said. my argument isn't changing. they absolutely don't need to be proved. but i did forget about dunta's quotes. and i'm not the one who said all this was made up "bulls@##."
So, your opinions don't need to be proved, but when they are, you'll point it out? I see nothing wrong with the original argument by Ric which is, if you're going to have an opinion on something, it's entirely reasonable to expect people to ask you to back up that opinion.
Then he moves the goalposts and claims you haven't satisfied it when you do and effectively changes your "burden of proof" to a "burden of persuasion" (though he still calls it a "burden of proof"), in accordance with the CF.net Federal Rules of BBS Procedure. That's my favorite part.
