5 years of internet posting has offered up this interesting observation

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

Case in point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

You are accusing Indy (and/or me) of peripheral nit-picks and refusing to "address the question"?

Oh, the humanity!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

The issue or question can only be developed using underlying reasoning and "facts". If the foundation is that shaky to begin with, it makes more sense to go after the foundation, rather than the upper floors.

[BYU71]

I can't resist throwing my two cents in here. I have found anyone who gets in a discussion with me and speaks as if their opinion is an absolute, I automatically try to figure out a way to show they are full of crap. Perhaps that is why mullahs bug me.

For example. "Going on a mission is a commandment and I will prove it by backing it up with what the Prophet said." What a load of crap. What makes anyone think I would take their interpretation of what the Prophet said. That is an individual thing, unless clearly stated. Anyone on here that wants to debate whether going on a mission is a commandment or not, show me where the Prophet stated it was a commandment.

Back to my point. There are very few absolutes in the world. When you come out stating something as an absolute from the beginning it is my opinion you are just setting yourself up for a fall.

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

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.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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

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.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

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.

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.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

I agree with this. I for one would be very dissapointed if you and Indy were not posting here. I do think you may take the jabs or cross examinations a little too much to heart though. Big deal if someone disagrees.