Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
It disappoints me that you consider me to be a "naysayer," as that term carries a sharply negative connotation. "Contrarian" maybe, but even then, that implies a regularity of opposition that does not exist. The times I have gone "against the grain" with Carl, Warren, Garth, Jim Porter, etc. on dozens and dozens of baseball issues over the past couple of years can be counted on the fingers of one hand (well, maybe two hands  ).
But this is a discussion forum, not a classroom, and problems arise when self-appointed teachers adopt a "that's the way it is, and I'll not tolerate any dissent" attitude.
|
See, Dave, this is where you betray your apparent predisposition when it comes to my posts and those of a select few others.
1. I have NEVER appointed myself anything in this or any other forum, much less a teacher.
2. I have ALWAYS been happy to tolerate dissent when it is based in reason and logic. Objections based purely on who the poster is and the intent to achieve nothing constructive but only to prove them "wrong" even over the most trivial of matters is another issue entirely.
3. I believe any "attitude" is very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately divine from a purely text medium.
I am not in the least surprised that, on your performance since I have returned to posting in this forum, you are seen as a naysayer. If I'm not mistaken, I even claimed as much in another thread. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you disagreeing with my position on any point of rules, mechanics or game management,
so long as you do so with reason and logic rather than by the trivial pursuit of minor "nits". That reasonable approach once characterised the vast majority of your posts. Unfortunately, I am disappointed not to be able to say the same of your latest efforts.
Cheers,