|
Jurassic Referee,
This is my last forray into this particular battle.
Your ad hominem attacks have gotten ridiculous. You've totally mischaracterized me and my arguments by taking statements totally out of context. You have repeatedly refused to respond to overarching ideas and responses to your attacks, instead choosing to highlight statements that, when taken in isolation, you find offensive. (For the record, if I culled through my own posts, I'm sure that i could take out particular sentences which, devoid of context, I would find offensive as well.) This tactic doesn't make you the voice of reason, it makes you a rhetorical charlatan.
Check the ENTIRE first post. I started this thread with a request for an NCAA rule. I was obviously unclear on the rule. Although it was implied already, I made the mistake of making explicit the idea that if the old rule applied, then a call had been missed, blown, kicked, whatever. I made no claim one way or another, since I did not know for sure what the rule is for NCAA. I didn't need to make that addendum. I didn't think, however, that someone would later take the sentence out of context to attack me. Clearly, that presumption proved naive. My initial leaning on what the rule is was confirmed when people responded that the rules are the same for Fed and NCAA: clearly no violation on the throw-in.
As for my general attitude, if after reading my last post, you still truly believe me to be a whiner, you're certainly entitled to the calculus that has led you to that point. I'm just glad I use a vastly different one when analyzing events and ideas in attempting to reach conclusions.
Make sure to keep your eyes closed so you don't get sand in them.
|