Another departure

[Kevin]

Wawrow responds (somewhat) on Twitter:

 

http://twitter.com/john_wawrow

 

 

Thanks, I just spewed water all over my iPhone!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think the problem is that people don't know how to react to situations on message boards.

 

If someone comes on here acting like a dick - go for it, be a dick right back to them.

 

If someone comes on here trying to have a legitimate conversation, it should be responded to in kind.

 

The problem is that people can't seem to differentiate when to be a prick and when to not be a prick on the internet.

 

If someone acts like a dick and you act like a dick right back to them....now the message board has two dicks postin' away

Newbies come in and think "oh, that must be how to behave"

 

Pretty soon ya got a board full of dicks (now that's an interesting image)

 

The solution is simple: don't act like a dick, and you don't have to worry about whether or not it's the "right situation"

[R. Rich]

The board would be a better place if we were all intolerant of idiots.

 

 

Fine. Get outta here, then.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think folks like TG and jw should be given zapping rights, someone gets to disrespectful or bothersome, zap, out of here, like a bug.

 

I suppose Lori already has zapping rights and If I was her I would be lit up like a giant bug zapper right about now.

 

You know, I liked (most) of these people's posts, I thought they added to the board

I agree it's a loss that they're gone

I personally don't think it would add to the board to create a clique of "super poster" journalists with zapping rights. Just me.

It might fix one problem by creating others (more serious?)

 

It was never clear to me what forms of criticism were considered acceptable (honestly!)

At times it seemed like anyone disagreeing was taken as a personal insult (some of the wording called out as examples were not egregious)

I know, I know, it was said "don't call the writer an ignorant idiot, that's personal"

So would calling the article "an ignorant idiotic piece of pseudo journalism" would be OK?

It's not personal, it's just the opinion of the OP on the article even if it's rudely worded?

 

I Somehow Don't Think So

 

I wound up with the impression (or mis-impression) that really, any kind of passionate disagreement would be taken amiss

(Just my personal impression based upon reading even Wawrow's responses to criticism)

I suppose "I respectfully disagree with the opinions expressed in that piece of journalism" would pass muster

When people feel passionate, passionate language tends to slip in.

 

And then there are dickheads.

I "get it" that it's unpleasant to encounter dickheads in any walk of life, enough of them and one decides to walk somewhere else

On the other hand, there are few venues in life where dickheads are so easy to ignore as on a message board

And frankly I think SDS does a good job of "keeping it clean" without being heavy-handed

 

The bottom line on a bunch of opinion pieces written this summer:

I thought they were too negative and overlooked a lot of positives from last year and positive off-season changes.

I, along with a number of others posting here, was mistaken. We thought better of Chan and his crew than they've shown so far.

 

Some people were more passionate about their response. From one perspective, passion is a good thing.

Marshall Faulk is unfortunately starting to look more like a prophet and less like a jerk, er, someone who speaks jerkly words.

 

Disclosure: I never, to my knowledge, posted a critique that was objected to. I only started posting this summer.

These are just my observations from several years on the sidelines.