Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

No personal attacks on the forum.

Posted: 1/22/2013 8:36 AM

No personal attacks on the forum. 



HeadHole wrote: "Link?"

-- Let's see:

Link? I don't have no link. I don't need no stinkin' link!

Or:

No thanks, I'm really not hungry.

Or:

This was said/spoken on a TV show talking about how the Harbaugh boys come from a football family. No links were verbally provided at that time. Sorry.

Are we sure that the Browns and Giants never ever played each other in Cleveland before '91? Not impossible, but I find it less than probable considering their histories.

In fact, a quick perusal of their records seems to indicate they first played in Cleveland in 1950. So....

Edit- Okay, this time- this one time- I will grasp the crutch of a "link" and lay it on you. Baby.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_22371584/harb augh-parents-will-be-watching-sons-from-living

"The Harbaughs, who have been married for 51 years, have always had a good game plan. (They spent their honeymoon attending a Giants-Browns game at Cleveland Municipal
Stadium.)"

Thanks for the link, but no personal attacks!

Last edited 1/22/2013 8:37 AM by kosartoslaughter

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 10:30 AM

Re: No personal attacks on the forum. 


"Thanks for the link, but no personal attacks!"

-- You are welcome.

Link requests/demands are funny things.

Some requests for a link appear to be a belief that the statement made is questionable at best and any information supplied will be used to suit whatever agenda the requester has as he undercuts the original statement. To that extent, a request for a link can be seen as a "personal attack". 

Some requests for a link are even-handed and merely an honest attempt to gather information so it can be evaluated and objectively judged. That contains no "personal attack" at that level.

So I tend to be suspicious of any link request during the course of any conversation. But all things are dependent on their context and there are, in fact, times when additional information can serve the greater good and link requests are not merely a sign of intellectual laziness or devious intentions.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/22/2013 9:54 PM

Re: No personal attacks on the forum. 



HeadHole wrote: "Thanks for the link, but no personal attacks!"

-- You are welcome.

Link requests/demands are funny things.

Some requests for a link appear to be a belief that the statement made is questionable at best and any information supplied will be used to suit whatever agenda the requester has as he undercuts the original statement. To that extent, a request for a link can be seen as a "personal attack". 

Some requests for a link are even-handed and merely an honest attempt to gather information so it can be evaluated and objectively judged. That contains no "personal attack" at that level.

So I tend to be suspicious of any link request during the course of any conversation. But all things are dependent on their context and there are, in fact, times when additional information can serve the greater good and link requests are not merely a sign of intellectual laziness or devious intentions.

no; you called me a baby for even asking about it...that is a personal attack. I am glad you provided the link, but I will not ask for links from now on.

Last edited 1/22/2013 9:56 PM by kosartoslaughter

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/23/2013 11:56 AM

Re: No personal attacks on the forum. 


"no; you called me a baby for even asking about it...that is a personal attack."

-- Now I see where you are coming from! 

I wrote something like: I'll lay it on you. Baby.

As in: I'm going to lay it on you, baby.

As in: Now I'm going to reveal the truth.

In that context "baby" is merely a way to say "buddy" or to indicate sincerity. At least in my little mind. I see it as a 70's thing and did not mean it in a hurtful or bad way.  In fact, I was poking fun at myself for spending so much time on an irrelevant Harbaugh thing.

I wasn't calling you a baby in the negative way. Just in a "buddy" way. I actually mean this sincerely.

Again, some link requests indicate an honest desire for information and aren't an underhanded way to attack a person or a desperate attempt to confuse things in a debate-like manner. 

I believe yours was a "good" link request. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 10:25 AM

Re: No personal attacks on the forum. 



HeadHole wrote: "no; you called me a baby for even asking about it...that is a personal attack."

-- Now I see where you are coming from! 

I wrote something like: I'll lay it on you. Baby.

As in: I'm going to lay it on you, baby.

As in: Now I'm going to reveal the truth.

In that context "baby" is merely a way to say "buddy" or to indicate sincerity. At least in my little mind. I see it as a 70's thing and did not mean it in a hurtful or bad way.  In fact, I was poking fun at myself for spending so much time on an irrelevant Harbaugh thing.

I wasn't calling you a baby in the negative way. Just in a "buddy" way. I actually mean this sincerely.

Again, some link requests indicate an honest desire for information and aren't an underhanded way to attack a person or a desperate attempt to confuse things in a debate-like manner. 

I believe yours was a "good" link request. 

I'm stupid...honestly, thanks for clearing that up. You can't tell sometimes with the internet. I have liked your posts before, so thanks for clearing it up! :) You should post on PF more!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 1/24/2013 11:07 AM

Re: No personal attacks on the forum. 


"I'm stupid...honestly, thanks for clearing that up"

-- I was stupid to write it in a way that could be misunderstood. That's what I get for channeling Telly Savalas. Anyway, I'm glad I could explain it. 

"You should post on PF more!"

-- This is a "be careful what you wish for" statement. But I can add this, since it has a bit of a Alex Smith/Colin Kapernick/San Francisco edge:

With Chud's non-committal comments about the starting QB position, does this show a sign that we may have a Jimmy Claussen kind of guy in Weeden? Will we possibly see a high draft pick spent on a QB as Weeden's "career" takes a down-turn? Did anyone in-house draft Weeden? Didn't the new owner and his minions lean towards a "new broom" approach? Haven't we had lots of turnover at QB? Didn't Chud come from Carolina, where Newton replaced Claussen? 

Am I being even more stupid to ask these questions?
Reply | Quote