Quote:
|
Originally Posted by truerookie
Mr. Scrapper, I totally agree with you with your perspective. However, I do not respond to any of his post right, wrong or indifferent. I must admit it's entertaining to see how he gets under people skin. JMO.
|
As one who's probably as guilty as almost anyone in this, I have to say he's not really under my skin. Although, apparently, his belief that he is under my skin (mine and others') might be what eggs him on.
Mostly, it's just a simple error correction that ends up going juvenile before it's all done; and I'll admit to indulging here. Frankly, I've made a couple of concerted decisions to limit my responses to simple factual corrections. They've obviously been unsuccessful.
As Scrapper said, it's not just the errors that draw the flames. It's the pattern:
1. Factual error or incredibly stupid officiating philosophy offered.
2. Correction offered.
3. Heels dug in.
4. Evidence presented for earlier correction.
This pattern is inevitably followed by one of two responses:
a) That's what I said, you misinterpreted because you hate me and want to discredit me.
b) That rule is stupid.
Often times, it's both A and B.
Honestly, it would be comical if it was an isolated occurance; but it's a very predictable SOP.