|
Post by pineapple on Dec 1, 2004 5:01:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I just don't see the problem with someone stating this as their opinion. Just as I don't see a problem with anyone responding that they disagree with it without attacking the poster. Those examples are not opinions but put downs. Whats the message between the lines. What is the denotation? What is the intention of the poster? These examples are bound to provoke arguments, especially if they are not based on facts, but on bias. That's the nature of the beast.
|
|
|
Post by Cubicle No More ... on Dec 1, 2004 6:18:06 GMT -5
Those examples are not opinions but put downs. Whats the message between the lines. What is the denotation? What is the intention of the poster? These examples are bound to provoke arguments, especially if they are not based on facts, but on bias. That's the nature of the beast. Interesting ... so then, by your very broad definition, nearly any opinion that is less than agreeable to Hawaii fans (or at least to you) is a "put down." Opinions are biased. There's no way around it. That's just what opinions are. Sure they're based in part on knowing the facts (or at least they should be), but they're also based on people's own perceptions, which in reality can be (and usually are) biased. Let's not read things into statements (by non-Hawaii and Hawaii fans/posters alike) that are simply not there. Dare I say it, but not everyone on this board is gonna be a fan of Hawaii. (Although they should be! ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 1, 2004 7:51:00 GMT -5
Those examples are not opinions but put downs. Whats the message between the lines. What is the denotation? What is the intention of the poster? These examples are bound to provoke arguments, especially if they are not based on facts, but on bias. That's the nature of the beast. Then by the nature of your own commentary here you're putting down everyone that disagrees with you?
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Dec 1, 2004 9:19:10 GMT -5
Those examples are not opinions but put downs. Whats the message between the lines. What is the denotation? What is the intention of the poster? These examples are bound to provoke arguments, especially if they are not based on facts, but on bias. That's the nature of the beast. So hypothetically, suppose on October 29th someone had said, "Y'know, I think the Kerry campaign heavily underestimates the effect of traditional nationalism at the polls, especially during wartime. Their belief that Kerry can rally enough Anybody-But-Bush voters to win the Presidency is a bubble that will burst next week." Would that be automatically be a put-down of John Kerry, John Edwards, and every registered Democrat in the USA? Is it possible that not everyone is out to get everyone else, and that sometimes people are simply stating their honest personal analysis of the situation? How about this one: "The American presence in Iraq is an unwinnable cause which will turn millions of Arabs and other Middle Easterners against us. The Administration's idea that they can democratize the Middle East is a bubble that will soon burst." Is that a put-down of every member of the Bush Administration and every registered Republican in the USA? Is it possible that not everyone is out to get everyone else, and that sometimes people are simply stating their honest personal analysis of the situation? Furthermore, is it possible that it is better, in the long run, to foster open communication by giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to free expression?
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Dec 1, 2004 10:18:27 GMT -5
You asked "Is it possible that it is better, in the long run, to foster open communication by giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to free expression?"
Yes, it is. but those posters about whom I am referring bash the Wahine with their free expressions. They certainly do not foster constructive dialogue. Your use of the presidential election is a classic! See what happened to Tom Brokaw in recent past and Dick Nixon? If you review my posts, you'll find that my "negative" reactions have been to the Brokaws and Nixons on this board. I challenge you to go over all of my posts to see if you can find any rebuttal I did that wasn't in regards these types of posters. I concede that sometimes these posters are just being playful or being the devil's advocate. Sometimes I don't find it humorous.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 1, 2004 11:41:10 GMT -5
I remember saying that I thought there were setters other than Kanoe Kamana`o who I thought might be worthy (perhaps more worthy) of being 1st team AA. That got quite a response, and not all of it was pretty. At that point, it felt like a Hawaii shout-down.
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Dec 1, 2004 12:53:48 GMT -5
Your use of the presidential election is a classic! See what happened to Tom Brokaw in recent past and Dick Nixon? Since nobody else seems willing, I'll go ahead and bite. What happened to Tom Brokaw in the recent past? And how is it the same as (or similar to) something that happened to Richard Milhous Nixon at some point in the more distant past? And to tie it all together, how does it relate to anything that is happening here on VT?
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Dec 1, 2004 13:32:10 GMT -5
You asked "Is it possible that it is better, in the long run, to foster open communication by giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to free expression?" Yes, it is. but those posters about whom I am referring bash the Wahine with their free expressions. They certainly do not foster constructive dialogue. It appears to me that the miscommunication may concern differing opinions as to what constitutes "bashing". "Bash" is a transitive verb [i.e. it requires a direct object], and it is the nature of the human mind to insert its Self into both subject and object of every interchange. Your use of the presidential election is a classic! See what happened to Tom Brokaw in recent past and Dick Nixon? If you review my posts, you'll find that my "negative" reactions have been to the Brokaws and Nixons on this board. So you feel that the invented hypothetical statements were, in fact, Kerry-bashing and Bush-bashing, respectively? I would not qualify them as such. I challenge you to go over all of my posts to see if you can find any rebuttal I did that wasn't in regards these types of posters. I concede that sometimes these posters are just being playful or being the devil's advocate. Sometimes I don't find it humorous. See the quote below: I know this question was directed to IslandgIrl, but I'm adding my dollars worth. On this board the line between that sort of general evaluation and pure putdowns is thin. The same person may have also said once, twice or many times something to this effect: "This is the first time the #1 team in the country won't be seeded." or "Don't get me wrong, I like Hawaii very much. But I don't think they belong in the top 25. In fact the bubble will burst in the first round." Statements like these are very provocative. Check your history, see if you are that kind of poster. When posters take delight in ridiculing the Wahine and their accomplishments, I thank God for BiK and = Idaho Boy® ! They will fire backl. While I can certainly see a nasty tone in your first paraphrased statement, I see no reason to interpret the second as anything other than a calm analysis based on the imaginary speaker's opinions on the relative strength of the tournament teams. Unfortunately, there is rarely a way to satisfactorily resolve subjective, interpretive differences in an online forum.
|
|
|
Post by Island on Dec 1, 2004 13:36:05 GMT -5
Why are people talking like they/ve never seen fan talk before? Say anything about anybody's team or coach or player and use the words "unproven", "lucky" or "biased" and see what kind of response you get from their fans. Any of the top program's legions would defend points and deflect like anyone else. I've seen it happen many times. Context and meaning isn't worth very much when a fan sees something about their team that is not positive. They will either attack or define. It depends on the poster. No one is immune. As someone pointed out, when you have a large passionate fan base, they seem to focus on what's good and fair for the team over the wellness of others. How many times has discussion of player ability come up among team or conference fans when a fan from another team argues against it. Then another fan from another fanbase argues against both points and so on and so forth. It blows up very quickly. I hate it but I've had to deal with it for years. The less people who jump into the scrum, the less it gets. That's been the only tried and true method other than moderator power and even that can't quell some of the firestorm.
|
|
|
Post by Island on Dec 1, 2004 13:42:02 GMT -5
Hey IB, weren't you making a similar argument when you talked about separating the Hawaii and Idaho programs from your personality as a volleyball fan? I think it does come down to the fact that you have to respond as an individual and as a fan and treat other people the same way. This is especially true for arguments where I like the poster but I don't like what he is trying to say. It's important to separate what is being said from the personality of the poster. [quote author=IdahoBoy®® link=board=general&thread=1101878147&start=14#0 date=1101892815]
Wow... your distaste for me and BiK has made you misinterpret what I thought was a very nice point.
Hawaii fans outnumber the rest of the vb fans in the world. Hence, there are more here. Hence, there are more people to stick up for their team. Hence, it's a worthless venture to try to put UH down, because they don't deserve it and their fans will defend them. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by JaneAusten on Dec 1, 2004 13:45:36 GMT -5
Mr. Pineapple advises,
I have checked my History. Twice. I feel comfortable in saying I am not that type of poster. However, I am, lamentably, the type of poster who takes delight in ridiculing posters named after fruit.
But, please, do not take offense. I would gladly make sport of Mr. Cantaloupe, Mrs. Kiwi, and the ubiquitous BananaBoy.
|
|
|
Post by JaneAusten on Dec 1, 2004 13:49:02 GMT -5
Why are people talking like they/ve never seen fan talk before? Say anything about anybody's team or coach or player and use the words "unproven", "lucky" or "biased" and see what kind of response you get from their fans. Any of the top program's legions would defend points and deflect like anyone else. I've seen it happen many times. Context and meaning isn't worth very much when a fan sees something about their team that is not positive. They will either attack or define. It depends on the poster. No one is immune. As someone pointed out, when you have a large passionate fan base, they seem to focus on what's good and fair for the team over the wellness of others. How many times has discussion of player ability come up among team or conference fans when a fan from another team argues against it. Then another fan from another fanbase argues against both points and so on and so forth. It blows up very quickly. I hate it but I've had to deal with it for years. The less people who jump into the scrum, the less it gets. That's been the only tried and true method other than moderator power and even that can't quell some of the firestorm. Aha! Ms. IslandGirl, as is her wont, tries a different tack: Reason. Will it appeal to all that is good in all of us or is it pure Folly? Let us see how far she gets. (One can almost hear the keyboards clacking away...)
|
|
|
Post by Island on Dec 1, 2004 14:01:27 GMT -5
Umm, I'm not sure if you're aware of this but I've been a poster for almost two seasons now. I'm not a girl and I'm not Island girl. Similar name sure but don't you think Island girl would have used another alias much different from her own. I've also been on other boards, all with the same handle(you would think something this simple would be used more). Your sarcasm is appreciated but I'm certain I've tried to be as logical as my abilities allow.
|
|
|
Post by JaneAusten on Dec 1, 2004 14:05:19 GMT -5
Oh, my! Color me embarrassed!
Of course, you are the most reasonable Island, not the equally reasonable IslandGirl.
My apologies, my dear sir. Forgive me for impugning your manhood (which sounds quite painful).
J
|
|
|
Post by Island on Dec 1, 2004 14:13:50 GMT -5
You get used to the sting after awhile.
|
|