Re: Poster of the Year Award
posted at 1/2/2014 8:30 PM EST
I was wrong about all four of those comments. And many more, no doubt. However, if you and I disagree it does not mean that you are right and I am wrong every time (no, I am not going to go back searching for examples) nor does it mean that I am right and you are wrong. Sometimes neither of us is right because its a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. And as I wrote NO ONE deserves to be "ridiculed" here (=speech or action intended to causecontemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision; Toridiculeis to make fun of,either sportively and good-humoredly,or unkindly with the intention ofhumiliating. ) Debated, sure. Or ignored. I stand by that opinion and although we have actually had some civil discussions of late, probably because both of us have toned it down, I think that whole exchange brought the board down a notch. Other posters have managed to avoid doing that entirely.
There are a couple of different philosophical points here, so don't take this personally.
1-I'm not in the habit of ridiculing people. I'm fine if someone wants to sign Drew and I am fine if they would prefer Bogaerts. Both are fine choices that could be argued either way.
I am less fine if someone calls Drew a terrible offensive player. He isn't. He is well above average for a SS. The poster then needs to be corrected, though maybe not ridiculed.
The last rung of the ladder is when someone ridicules our #1 pick as a slow-footed OF, when the guy is a pitcher. If someone posts something negative about the RS, when they have no idea of what they are talking about, they need to be ridiculed. it is really in their best interest. Your opinion should be a thing of value. If someone says you can stick your hand in a fire without getting hurt, that opinion needs to be ridiculed. When one of my friends said that he could drive just as good drunk as sober, the opinion needed to be ridiculed.
2-You have to get used to the idea of a hierarchy. My opinion of the medical field is not as good as yours. My understanding of statistics was not as good as 30 Something/Val. My understanding of our prospects is not as good as Hugh's. I don't feel bad about it. I don't feel a loss of self-esteem. It is what it is. The fact that I can sit here and try to understand what they are saying is exciting to me.
3--As Luguna mentioned, the reason why I will almost always be right when we disagree is because I allow myself to be pro and anti any given move. It is akin to being an independent in a discussion where your opponent supports the far left or the far right 100% of the time. The person allowing themselves two options will always out-think the person allowing themselves one option.
It doesn't make me any smarter. It's just that when you always take the anti-Red Sox side, I will always have an advantage.