Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109341)

If you take issue with someone's opinion, simply because you think the statement is false and/or the reasoning is lacking or faulty, then that person assumes you believe the opposite of what they do.

Once that perception is established, regardless of how frequent or specific you try to articulate your actual views, it all either gets dismissed outright, or inextricably tainted by that faux perception.

Is this some bizarre psychological phenomenon? Is it merely a lazy debating tactic?

While not directly a post about religion, this is one place in particular I notice this happen on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 109342)

Five years? Come on, man. You're sandbagging. Or did you mean five years of time if you added up all the actual time you spent posting?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109341)

If you take issue with someone's opinion, simply because you think the statement is false and/or the reasoning is lacking or faulty, then that person assumes you believe the opposite of what they do.

Once that perception is established, regardless of how frequent or specific you try to articulate your actual views, it all either gets dismissed outright, or inextricably tainted by that faux perception.

Is this some bizarre psychological phenomenon? Is it merely a lazy debating tactic?

While not directly a post about religion, this is one place in particular I notice this happen on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109347)

I think you should post more. Perhaps your posting history is so sparse that we don't yet have a firm picture of your thought processes and your inclinations.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109348)

I've come to the conclusion that for you specifically, it would be irrelevant how often I posted.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109348)

Besides, what I'm pointing out here applies in general and not uniquely to me.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109350)

So you are implying that everyone is misunderstood?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109351)

No, just ones that will consistently (and usually thoughtfully) disagree with others.

That includes plenty of people on this site, but not you; you just simply disagree with others and give monosyllabic grunts of approval to the ones you agree with.

Personally, I don't know what you believe other than you offer your peanut gallery support to those people you like and predictable derision to those people you dislike. You rarely take the time or effort to articulate anything beyond that to indicate what your views are on much of anything.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109341)

If you take issue with someone's opinion, simply because you think the statement is false and/or the reasoning is lacking or faulty, then that person assumes you believe the opposite of what they do.

Once that perception is established, regardless of how frequent or specific you try to articulate your actual views, it all either gets dismissed outright, or inextricably tainted by that faux perception.

Is this some bizarre psychological phenomenon? Is it merely a lazy debating tactic?

While not directly a post about religion, this is one place in particular I notice this happen on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109351)

Personally, I don't know what you believe other than you offer your peanut gallery support to those people you like and predictable derision to those people you dislike. You rarely take the time or effort to articulate anything beyond that to indicate what your views are on much of anything.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109406)

That's funny. You must be too busy typing to read any of my posts.

I am sorry I interrupted your pity party. Carry on.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 109412)

Indy, this is a honest and sincere response:

When you criticize a poster's reasoning and point out that a statement is false but don't address the issue or question they bring out THAT IS A BIZARRE PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON/LAZY DEBATING TACTIC.

Tex moreso then you, but you also do this (and I'm sure we are all guilty of it on occasion).

People wouldn't think that you believed the opposite of them if, instead of harping on tangential aspects of what they say, you addressed the issue directly. After showing them that respect, then harp at the edged if you must. Then they would know where you stand on the issue and might listen to the peripheral nit-picks.

Your question could be restated thus:

Why do people assume I disagree with them on a question when I refuse to address the question but in response criticize their general reasoning or attack an underlying fact?

This wouldn't be a problem for you if you responded to the issue directly.

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 109412)

Indy, this is a honest and sincere response:

When you criticize a poster's reasoning and point out that a statement is false but don't address the issue or question they bring out THAT IS A BIZARRE PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENON/LAZY DEBATING TACTIC.

Tex moreso then you, but you also do this (and I'm sure we are all guilty of it on occasion).

People wouldn't think that you believed the opposite of them if, instead of harping on tangential aspects of what they say, you addressed the issue directly. After showing them that respect, then harp at the edged if you must. Then they would know where you stand on the issue and might listen to the peripheral nit-picks.

Your question could be restated thus:

Why do people assume I disagree with them on a question when I refuse to address the question but in response criticize their general reasoning or attack an underlying fact?

This wouldn't be a problem for you if you responded to the issue directly.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 109425)

For example, Indy the other day your comment on all players being lost to Utah only happening for two reasons. That was an absolute statement and you had to back down from it. If you had indicated most instead of "all", you certainly wouldn't have gotten any argument from me.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109428)

I said "now", which was referring specifically to the Bronco regime. And I still haven't backed down from that claim, and my claim is based on SPECIFIC observations of the handful of players during the Bronco regime that had actual scholarship offers from both BYU and Utah. No one has been able to provide a valid counter-example for that time period.

It wasn't a prediction of future outcomes, nor was it a description of how our head-to-head recruiting has fared prior to Bronco.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...79&postcount=8

Thus, your comment here helps underscore what I've been trying to say all along. Too many people aren't reading what is actually said carefully enough, and then ascribe a more extreme interpretation to what was said than is justified.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 109429)

LOL That was your revised statement. Go back and see what you said the first time. Sadly I don't know what thread it was in nor do I know how to pull it up on here like I could on CB. Suffice it to say your original statement was wrong. Don't expect us to read your mind. You have a great track record of being a homer. Nothing wrong with it, but don't jump our case if you get called on it.

IMHO, even your statement about now not losing any recruits to Utah other than for academic or honor codes reasons is assinine and shows an inability to deal in reality at times.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 109429)

Suffice it to say your original statement was wrong. Don't expect us to read your mind.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109432)

That link IS what I said the first time. If you disagree with my observation, then simply provide ONE recruiting counter-example from the past two years. It's a simple challenge.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 109433)

Another thing worth pointing out ... there is very little giving benefit of the doubt that goes on here. Given the imperfect medium of communication an Internet message board offers, there ought to be room for allowing someone to correct and clarify comments. Sometimes--even often--a comment doesn't come across the way the poster intended, and instead of allowing for misunderstanding, people latch on to it like a pitbull.

Indeed, debates here are not "friendly sparing" in the bar after hours, but more like cross-examinations on the witness stand.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109432)

That link IS what I said the first time. If you disagree with my observation, then simply provide ONE recruiting counter-example from the past two years. It's a simple challenge.

Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 109434)

The last kid is one example, Siliaga, or do you have inside information from TBS chat that he is an honor code problem.

Believe me that shit about academics and honor code gets old with not only Ute fans but a lot of BYU fans. Keep putting yourself (speaking of the my shit don't stink crowd) high on this lofty pedastal of morality, academics and people just lie in wait to knock you down. If it is that good you don't have to ram it down people's throats. They will see it.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 109440)

I think you are under the impression that the "peanut gallery" comment is much funnier than it really is. After post # 34,124 on the topic, it may be time for you to come up with something new, particularly in a thread where you are complaining about being put into certain categories by posters.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109448)

I don't think it's funny, I just think it's an apt description for one particular poster. There are plenty of people on this site that I regularly disagree with where we've still managed to have a meaningful and active exchange of ideas at one time or another.

That has never happened with Lebowski. Why? Because he doesn't even try to engage a differing viewpoint by articulating his own. He hasn't tried to do it in this thread either.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109446)

Siliga falls into the "who knows?" category.

Let's look at this from another angle. Bronco is trying to evaluate how we're doing recruiting head-to-head against Utah and want to analyze why certain athletes went to Utah instead of BYU after being offered by BYU. This way he can minimize future losses.

What does his report tell him?

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109448)

I don't think it's funny, I just think it's an apt description for one particular poster. There are plenty of people on this site that I regularly disagree with where we've still managed to have a meaningful and active exchange of ideas at one time or another.

That has never happened with Lebowski. Why? Because he doesn't even try to engage a differing viewpoint by articulating his own. He hasn't tried to do it in this thread either.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109448)

This is why the Religion forum on CG is becoming completely useless. It's an unending cycle of someone saying something only to have that statement deliberately misrepresented, ascribing mindless and baseless characterizations to that person and leaving nothing substantive as a response to the actual point made.

What a waste of 10 minutes that was browsing through this thread.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109459)

That's just bullshit, Indy, and you know it. There are plenty of threads where I have articulated my viewpoint in detail. You just choose to ignore that fact when it suits you.

You want my viewpoint on this thread? OK. The topic of this thread is your argument that many posters immediately assume that you believe the opposite of the poster simply because you point out a what you consider to be a fallacy in the reasoning. I think both Adam and BYU71 made excellent points about your tendency to nitpick at tangential issues or to speak in absolutes that paint yourself into a corner. I agree with both of those points but I think it goes farther than that. The reason you often get the reaction you do over here is because you cultivate it. There is an element of condescension and self-righteousness running through almost all of your posts. The thread started by Requiem the other day about choirs is a good case in point. You came late to the discussion and eventually made some decent points but they were couched in your typical condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Your first response was to put down everyone and everything in the thread:



This was in spite of the fact that most of the posters had suggested that Requiem pursue the issue with the bishop in a peaceful manner, not putting him on the defensive. This is your standard M.O., Indy. You see yourself as some defender of truth and righteousness correcting all of us "borderline apostates" on CG. And then you have the balls to whine about being misunderstood. You follow a similar pattern with sports posts. Your well-documented condescension towards Ute fans and your whitewashed outlook on all things related to BYU football are legendary.

And I stand by my original comments on irony. For you to claim that you are misunderstood in spite of the fact that you post either here or over on CB every 35 seconds is quite a statement. I think you are struggling to accept the fact that maybe the problem is you. Or perhaps you really are misunderstood. In which case you must be an incredibly poor communicator.

Finally, I call bullshit on your claim that this thread is not about you specifically but that it applies "in general". If that were indeed true, it would mean that you alone somehow are able to magically discern what others "really believe". You can make that claim for yourself, but not others.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109459)

The thread started by Requiem the other day about choirs is a good case in point. You came late to the discussion and eventually made some decent points but they were couched in your typical condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Your first response was to put down everyone and everything in the thread:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug (Post 109479)

I do appreciate that you took the time to respond in detail. Thanks. Let's have more substantive interactions in the future.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 109459)

This was in spite of the fact that most of the posters had suggested that Requiem pursue the issue with the bishop in a peaceful manner, not putting him on the defensive.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski (Post 107446)

Wow. What a sad story. I am with Archaea on this one. Go to the S.P. and raise some hell.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 109433)

Indeed, debates here are not "friendly sparing" in the bar after hours, but more like cross-examinations on the witness stand.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 109497)

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.



Reviewing that thread, it is remarkable how adamantly I was attacked for offering an alternative course of action. And quite calmly, I might add. All-American and creekster, while not agreeing with me, at least conversed in civil tones.

SIEQ and Waters on the other hand ...

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 109509)

Tex you do know that Lebowski can't see you, don't you?

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 109509)

Did you forget this post of Lebowski's?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...595#post107595

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 109509)

Tex you do know that Lebowski can't see you, don't you?

Did you forget this post of Lebowski's?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...595#post107595

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 109497)

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.



Reviewing that thread, it is remarkable how adamantly I was attacked for offering an alternative course of action. And quite calmly, I might add. All-American and creekster, while not agreeing with me, at least conversed in civil tones.

SIEQ and Waters on the other hand ...

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 109518)

Tex tactic #316G: Make the argument about the people who disagree with you instead of about the issues.

#673R: Construe "inaction" as "alternative action" and privelige official authority at every step, and even to the point of suggesting inaction because an SP might also react badly.

#115C: Ignore that the implications of your statements are racist on the face, and insist that you can't be racist because you don't intend to be racist.

#46A: Say that you aren't a company man, even as you do nothing but toe the company line.

#8876D: Talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 109519)

This is all false.

But it's truly interesting, isn't it, that in that thread All-American and creekster learned how to disagree peacefully, and yet somehow you can't? Did you happen to notice they were able to say "I don't think Tex's recommendation is the right one" without rancor?

Here's a couple of examples:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...8&postcount=53
http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...7&postcount=47

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 109521)

I have no rancor toward you. I really don't. That doesn't mean I can't call you out on your obfuscation, dissembling, and shifting of disagreements onto persons themselves.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 109521)

I'm curious as to whether you've reconsidered your position as articulated in Requiem's thread the other day.