Is Wilson generally unhappy with the run-based offense

[drdiags]

except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

I guess you can bring this up with the Admin folks. If they agree with you, I am sure they will take appropriate actions. I didn't make the rules around here but try to follow those that have been established.

My thinking is that the intent was to remove the emotion from the debate if one could see a counter point calling out the absurdness of the prior post as an attack on the post, not the person posting it. I am not sure why there was a distinction made but there has been.

The problem is built up vendettas can be cloaked using this thought but sometimes an apple is just an apple. In other words a post is a stupid one and can be called such without intending to disparage the poster. Maybe the original point was lost and calling the post out allows the author to clarify?

 

[netskier]

Better to focus on the argument being right or wrong, based on the truth of the facts, or the correctness of the logic.

Calling the post stupid is de facto calling the poster stupid, and it is silly to assert otherwise.

 

[drdiags]

Better to focus on the argument being right or wrong, based on the truth of the facts, or the correctness of the logic.

Calling the post stupid is de facto calling the poster stupid, and it is silly to assert otherwise.

No debate from me but the founder of the forum and many that use it have operated under this. Things change, wake me when they do.

 

[Scottemojo]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

Wanted to raise this point, because the history of this forum is that one can attack the post and not be seen as attacking the poster. When the post is called ignorant, the accepted way it was viewed by the mods was it didn't violate the attacking the poster no-no. It used to be in the Forum FAQ. If Pithy was still living he would point out this fact to you for clarity.

You may feel it is an attack on your view, and it probably is, but does not violate the rules laid out for forum behavior.

On topic, I think any QB would love to throw more. No one wants to be seen as a place-holder but rather a difference maker. I don't doubt that Wilson wouldn't mind having a little more freedom and volume in this offense. Beast will not be with him forever, he eventually will be expected to post volume like the others and it may not be here. I could see Pete stepping down in a few years and Wilson most likely is going to be playing much longer than that.

except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

The rules of .NET and the law are two different things.
.NET's rules are just fine, I choose to believe they built a little leeway into things because sometimes a poster is just plain being stupid, a dick, or a troll.

Let him without sin cast the first stone. Are you innocent of ever aiming shit at the poster and not the post, Anthony?

 

[Anthony!]

except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

I guess you can bring this up with the Admin folks. If they agree with you, I am sure they will take appropriate actions. I didn't make the rules around here but try to follow those that have been established.

My thinking is that the intent was to remove the emotion from the debate if one could see a counter point calling out the absurdness of the prior post as an attack on the post, not the person posting it. I am not sure why there was a distinction made but there has been.

The problem is built up vendettas can be cloaked using this thought but sometimes an apple is just an apple. In other words a post is a stupid one and can be called such without intending to disparage the poster. Maybe the original point was lost and calling the post out allows the author to clarify?

If they agreed with you I would have heard by now.

 

[Anthony!]

Yes because attacking the post of someone does not mean you are not attacking them. Dude get a clue you call my post laughable your calling me laughable. As to the rest of your post you said nothing, so there is nothing to respond to.

Wanted to raise this point, because the history of this forum is that one can attack the post and not be seen as attacking the poster. When the post is called ignorant, the accepted way it was viewed by the mods was it didn't violate the attacking the poster no-no. It used to be in the Forum FAQ. If Pithy was still living he would point out this fact to you for clarity.

You may feel it is an attack on your view, and it probably is, but does not violate the rules laid out for forum behavior.

On topic, I think any QB would love to throw more. No one wants to be seen as a place-holder but rather a difference maker. I don't doubt that Wilson wouldn't mind having a little more freedom and volume in this offense. Beast will not be with him forever, he eventually will be expected to post volume like the others and it may not be here. I could see Pete stepping down in a few years and Wilson most likely is going to be playing much longer than that.

except as the law reads, it is not about how you meant it but how it is taken, Example you tell a woman they look nice, they take it as sexual harassment, guess what it is. Same goes for liable, slander, and verbal attacks. If that was the "policy" than it was a bad policy, as all it did was allow some to hide behind it while still attacking the person.

The rules of .NET and the law are two different things.
.NET's rules are just fine, I choose to believe they built a little leeway into things because sometimes a poster is just plain being stupid, a dick, or a troll.

Let him without sin cast the first stone. Are you innocent of ever aiming shit at the poster and not the post, Anthony?

Never said I was I was defending my stance on my response to a post that to me was a personal attack and then having someone trying to chastise me saying attack the post not the poster. To me he was attacking the poster and then trying to hide behind his lame statement.

 

[drdiags]

If they agreed with you I would have heard by now.

Until or if they do respond to this whole thing I would agree you are right. I have nothing to point to that states the opinion of the Owner/Mods since the FAQ Forum is empty and the ability to look at posts over some TBD period of time no longer is functioning for me.

I only pointed out where I thought your argument against the rebuttal fell. I tend not to criticize people's posts and if I thought the post was stupid, just roll my eyes in privacy. Others don't feel that inhibition and unless things have changed are not discouraged as long as the mods don't see it as a personal attack. Obviously you felt it was. I have no dog in this fight. Just trying to provide an alternate view. Enjoy your day.