Off topic stuff from the Vikings/Saints game thread

[mraynrand]

Serious question - "Who determines what "disrespected" means?"

Everyone's a bit different. You have to gain a feeling for different posters and how they will react. For example, I think Woody can take it when I call him Lou Holtz' clone or saying that something he wrote is absurd. Maybe I would have to word it differently for 007 (in fairness, she and some others on both sides are totally sensitized so little things can work as triggers). Unfortunately, on a web forum, things like playful sarcasm can easily get misinterpreted.

[Bossman641]

This has been a very revealing thread for me.

I posted something similar in the Favre thread, and was basically told "you're wrong, you don't know what they think".

Then we have one of the "they" come out of the woodwork and tell you what she thinks, and what Rastak thinks and the response is either "tough", or "you're wrong and you don't know what Ras thinks".

It's been very revealing.

When did Rastak say anything?

You know why else we could be losing posters? Maybe they are sick of being told how to act. Maybe they are sick of being told by Favre fans how terrible we are because we "hate" Favre while they still respect Favre. Maybe they are sick of being at a forum that seems more interested in fair and equal treatment for Viking fans than Packer fans.

Look, I can throw out allegations too. Does that make it true?

This isn't kindergarten. Everybody doesn't get an A and a plus for trying hard. IMO, if we are losing posters who are too sensitive to take criticism of a team that they only like because of Favre then we aren't missing much.

Blast Favre, blast the Vikings, (or the opposite) but don't blast the poster. That's the key. 007 Nutz are BFFFs - there's nothing wrong with that, even if they want the Vikings to beat the Packers. I'm OK with that, so long as they don't get upset with me when I tell them that I want to see Favre's ass kicked when he comes into Lambeau. Decent people can exist on both sides of the Favre fence.

____
BTW, the Vikings didn't lose by all that much to a very good defending Superbowl winner on the road. They are going to be tough to beat this year.

Exactly!

I'm not sure when the last time was that a BFFF was personally criticized or disrespected. Were their ideas and beliefs questioned? Of course. But I have not seen anyone getting disrespected.

Serious question - "Who determines what "disrespected" means?"

You keep telling me that no one is "disrespecting" anyone. They (via PM's) tell me that they feel attacked and disrespected.

So, Bossman, who is correct?

On this particular issue, the only horse I've got in the race, is several folks that I consider either virtual friends, or personal friends that I have met are MISSING.

As to recently, have you read the responses to Woody's posts? Have you read 95% of what Campbell says to woody, and vice versa?

Ziggy said it far better than I could have.

The site is PACKERrats. It isn't friendsoffavre.com or vikingbackers.com.

Please answer my question. Don't you think it is just as likely that posters are being driven off with this constant pandering to Favre/Viking fans? I have no problem with Woody at all, but he constantly posts how he thinks he is a better person because of his views on Favre. The same thing with Mobb calling himself a more enlightened human being. Of course you never criticize them for trying to force their beliefs on others, it's always directed the other way.

Is it really that difficult to have thick skin on a message board?

[Pugger]

It just isn't the Favre thing that might be driving folks away. Not long ago I was chastised and called a hypocrite in so many words because of one of my posts. I almost said the hell with it but I didn't in the end because most of the time this is a pretty good forum. Others might not be so thick skinned.

If you did again, what you did at that time, I'd do the same thing again. The sad part? You kept insisting that if I had "just took it the way you meant it" I'd have understood what you really meant wasn't what you actually said.

I just read the words you typed.

Easiest thing in the world to "pile on". It was my view then that you were doing that. It hasn't changed, and I believe it continues. I choose not to weigh in most of the time.

What truly disappointed me was your tone towards me. I wasn't piling anything on and I did not even have you in my thoughts when I typed that post in that thread so I was really taken aback by your response. If I mess up, fine. I'll take my medicine. But there was no way in h3ll that I was directing anything at you and that is why I responded the way I did.

[retailguy]

Bossman, I'm not talking about "pandering" to the Vikings, or the Viking fans.

I see no evidence that anyone has ever posted that they left because we didn't "bash" other teams.

I am specifically talking about conversations that I have had with Bretsky and with 007. I have had no conversations with Rastak but others have, and have said things along the same lines.

You can keep insisting that "your beliefs" are accurate. I have information to the contrary, (admittedly a small sample) but still from the "horses mouth" so to speak.

You "laud" Ziggy's response, but even she mentions "rat on rat" crime. What is that? If it is what I think it is, then it isn't different from what I'm saying at all, and in fact, would completely SUPPORT what I claimed.

Like Bretsky, I know Ziggy personally, and believe I have an understanding as to what she is trying to say. I'll let her respond directly to confirm that before I assume too much.

So, back to my question - "Who is the final authority on what "disrespected" means, and what is proper or not"?

Incidentally, I agree with Rand, you do have to "get to know" folks before you can figure this stuff out. The problem with that? The four folks who I have specifically mentioned by name have in excess of 35k posts, and by any standard, knew the motives, intentions, and had an understanding of the sense of humor and motivations of the majority of the posters involved. And they decided to LEAVE.

[retailguy]

It just isn't the Favre thing that might be driving folks away. Not long ago I was chastised and called a hypocrite in so many words because of one of my posts. I almost said the hell with it but I didn't in the end because most of the time this is a pretty good forum. Others might not be so thick skinned.

If you did again, what you did at that time, I'd do the same thing again. The sad part? You kept insisting that if I had "just took it the way you meant it" I'd have understood what you really meant wasn't what you actually said.

I just read the words you typed.

Easiest thing in the world to "pile on". It was my view then that you were doing that. It hasn't changed, and I believe it continues. I choose not to weigh in most of the time.

What truly disappointed me was your tone towards me. I wasn't piling anything on and I did not even have you in my thoughts when I typed that post in that thread so I was really taken aback by your response. If I mess up, fine. I'll take my medicine. But there was no way in h3ll that I was directing anything at you and that is why I responded the way I did.

Yes, I know all this. I told you then that I believed you to be mocking me, and my POV directly and I told you WHY I believed that. Yet you still insist that you typed something you didn't mean, and I was nuts to draw that conclusion.

I've never met you, and honestly, will NEVER meet you so I have no way to assess the truth of your claim, but I have the capability to read, so again, I read the words you chose to put on the page. I compared those words to other words that you said in reply to my post from a couple days prior and then based a conclusion on that combined experience.

I don't particularly care what you intended to type. I care what you did type and what it said to me.

[Bossman641]

From what I have heard, Bretsky and others left during the height of the Favre drama. There were plenty of times then that things got way too personal between posters. You will hear no disagreement from me on that. I think it is fairly obvious that things have gotten much better since then. People obviously still disagree and post as such, but nothing like before. There is the occasional line-crossing, but I'd argue it goes both ways, with Favre fans saying they are better off for respecting Favre and the other side saying they are fools.

In spite of this improvement, we keep hearing from you and 007, in this case, that all the Favre bashers are to blame. It has gone from criticizing the Favre fans directly to criticizing Favre to criticizing the Vikings. IMO, that's about as far off as it is going to get. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect posters at a Packers board to not make fun of the Vikings and to not be happy when the Vikings fail. And yet, that's exactly what is posted - that we should respect the Vikings and should not make fun of Favre and on and on.

[MJZiggy]

This has been a very revealing thread for me.

I posted something similar in the Favre thread, and was basically told "you're wrong, you don't know what they think".

Then we have one of the "they" come out of the woodwork and tell you what she thinks, and what Rastak thinks and the response is either "tough", or "you're wrong and you don't know what Ras thinks".

It's been very revealing.

It's a nice thought, hon, but after three years, I'm tired of being told what I can say in a Viking thread on our forum. Either we put our big girl panties on or we stay the hell out of Viking threads on the Packer forum if we don't want to hear people making fun of the VIKINGS' quarterback. Two threads is just not that hard to avoid, but trying to tell people what they can't say in those two threads is just really getting silly. I bet there are very few references to Favre in the Eagles thread, but if I get the chance, I'm surely going to be making fun of the Eagles. Rastak's never had a problem that I've seen with people going after the Vikings before (or their players, management, owners or facility--you didn't see him getting all pissy when the love boat was the butt of jokes around here--and he of all people knows how to hate Favre. He did it for over a decade). He backs up his retorts with facts, but left when people started going after HIM instead of the team.

B didn't leave because people said unkind things about Favre. He left because of the Rat on Rat crime. Seven's post wasn't about Favre. Her post was solely meant to criticize anyone who said bad things about her boy. She may love him, but we don't have to.

So, who is guilty of "rat on rat" crime and what does that specifically mean to you? Is "rat on rat" crime a personal attack, or what is it?

I'm not going to name names. That's unnecessary, I think. I've seen two types of "rat on rat" crime prevalent in this thread: first is telling a poster that they're stupid or disrespectful for being angry with Favre or that they're somehow bad people for feeling that way (because, after all, hate is bad). The flipside is when people tell others that they're stupid or not Packer fans if they still have any respect for Favre at all. It got tiresome, no?

There are plenty who have a lot to say to and about Favre. But that's about Favre. If you just want to talk about how wonderful Favre is and hear nothing else, Favre himself has a forum just for that--no criticism allowed. This is not a Favre forum, it's a Packer forum. Criticizing our rival quarterback is allowed. But that doesn't mean we have to criticize each other to do it. And it doesn't mean we have to criticize other FOR doing it.

You mentioned the attacks on Woodbuck. Please re-read Woodbuck's reentry into this thread.

[retailguy]

From what I have heard, Bretsky and others left during the height of the Favre drama. There were plenty of times then that things got way too personal between posters. You will hear no disagreement from me on that. I think it is fairly obvious that things have gotten much better since then. People obviously still disagree and post as such, but nothing like before. There is the occasional line-crossing, but I'd argue it goes both ways, with Favre fans saying they are better off for respecting Favre and the other side saying they are fools.

In spite of this improvement, we keep hearing from you and 007, in this case, that all the Favre bashers are to blame. It has gone from criticizing the Favre fans directly to criticizing Favre to criticizing the Vikings. IMO, that's about as far off as it is going to get. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect posters at a Packers board to not make fun of the Vikings and to not be happy when the Vikings fail. And yet, that's exactly what is posted - that we should respect the Vikings and should not make fun of Favre and on and on.

So, then, today, who determines "disrespect"? Is what Campbell said two days ago to Woody OK? Are the things that were said personally about me two weeks ago when I was talking about 19-0 OK?

What/who determines "crossing the line", and "what was meant" by the attempted display of a joke gone bad? You keep insisting that it is a two way street, but I don't know of one example where a Favre hater left because of his/her treatment here. I'd be happy to investigate if you have some evidence that I am not privy to.

[Bossman641]

From what I have heard, Bretsky and others left during the height of the Favre drama. There were plenty of times then that things got way too personal between posters. You will hear no disagreement from me on that. I think it is fairly obvious that things have gotten much better since then. People obviously still disagree and post as such, but nothing like before. There is the occasional line-crossing, but I'd argue it goes both ways, with Favre fans saying they are better off for respecting Favre and the other side saying they are fools.

In spite of this improvement, we keep hearing from you and 007, in this case, that all the Favre bashers are to blame. It has gone from criticizing the Favre fans directly to criticizing Favre to criticizing the Vikings. IMO, that's about as far off as it is going to get. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect posters at a Packers board to not make fun of the Vikings and to not be happy when the Vikings fail. And yet, that's exactly what is posted - that we should respect the Vikings and should not make fun of Favre and on and on.

So, then, today, who determines "disrespect"? Is what Campbell said two days ago to Woody OK? Are the things that were said personally about me two weeks ago when I was talking about 19-0 OK?

What/who determines "crossing the line", and "what was meant" by the attempted display of a joke gone bad? You keep insisting that it is a two way street, but I don't know of one example where a Favre hater left because of his/her treatment here. I'd be happy to investigate if you have some evidence that I am not privy to.

I don't know what SC said to Woody. If they have a problem, I think it would be more beneficial for the 2 of them to figure it out than for me to figure it out. I also don't know what was personally said to you. I know you pushed the envelope by saying that you expected the team to go 16-0. People called you out and said you were trying to cause a stir. You finally admitted that that's exactly what you were doing, but that it was done to try and teach a lesson to all those who had been overly optimistic to you in the past. To be honest, I didn't understand the point of your show.

It is a 2 way street in terms of criticism going back and forth. I don't know of any Favre haters that have left. There are probably 2 reasons for this. One, it's a lot easier to stick around since they are in the majority. Two, they aren't as sensitive. I know when Mobb or Woody posts about their respect/admiration for Favre I don't take it personally. I think they are wrong and can't imagine feeling that way, but it doesn't personally bother me. Contrast that to the way that the Favre backers have acted, taking it personally (as if Favre were a family member or friend) and lecturing why he is due respect/how much we owe him/etc.

[mraynrand]

Are the things that were said personally about me two weeks ago when I was talking about 19-0 OK?

Yes, pretty much. You were playing a snide game with people and you knew it. You should expect to get some grief for that.

[retailguy]

I'm not going to name names. That's unnecessary, I think. I've seen two types of "rat on rat" crime prevalent in this thread: first is telling a poster that they're stupid or disrespectful for being angry with Favre or that they're somehow bad people for feeling that way (because, after all, hate is bad). The flipside is when people tell others that they're stupid or not Packer fans if they still have any respect for Favre at all. It got tiresome, no?

There are plenty who have a lot to say to and about Favre. But that's about Favre. If you just want to talk about how wonderful Favre is and hear nothing else, Favre himself has a forum just for that--no criticism allowed. This is not a Favre forum, it's a Packer forum. Criticizing our rival quarterback is allowed. But that doesn't mean we have to criticize each other to do it. And it doesn't mean we have to criticize other FOR doing it.

You mentioned the attacks on Woodbuck. Please re-read Woodbuck's reentry into this thread.

Fair enough on the "naming of names". I agree on the Favre forum.

However, neither of you have addressed what we can/should/ or should not do about what happened in the past as to why these people left. They have chosen not to post here based on what happened, and common sense tells me that they wouldn't stay away if there was any type of belief that suggested those things were over.

I used Woody as an example of this specifically. yes, I agree that the "new" woody is doing a fair amount of attacking currently. I also happen to believe that you reach a point, where you fight back. I know for certain that has happened to me personally.

In the "totality" of Woody's posts, would it be your opinion that woody has been "attacked", or has "attacked" more frequently?

The same thing could be said about Partial. Towards the end, partial was a complete and utter asshole. He reached a point where he fought back, and his actions led to his departure. In the beginning, he wasn't this way. But this forum reached a point, where everything the guy said was ridiculed and attacked, and at some point, he snapped, became an absolute moron, and got himself banned.

I happen to believe that most of merry band of "favre haters" would do the same thing if they had to face the "other side of the fence" so to speak.

[retailguy]

Are the things that were said personally about me two weeks ago when I was talking about 19-0 OK?

Yes, pretty much. You were playing a snide game with people and you knew it. You should expect to get some grief for that.

grief is fine, but what about the personal attack posts that had nothing to do with the topic at hand?

[retailguy]

I don't know what SC said to Woody. If they have a problem, I think it would be more beneficial for the 2 of them to figure it out than for me to figure it out. I also don't know what was personally said to you. I know you pushed the envelope by saying that you expected the team to go 16-0. People called you out and said you were trying to cause a stir. You finally admitted that that's exactly what you were doing, but that it was done to try and teach a lesson to all those who had been overly optimistic to you in the past. To be honest, I didn't understand the point of your show.

It is a 2 way street in terms of criticism going back and forth. I don't know of any Favre haters that have left. There are probably 2 reasons for this. One, it's a lot easier to stick around since they are in the majority. Two, they aren't as sensitive. I know when Mobb or Woody posts about their respect/admiration for Favre I don't take it personally. I think they are wrong and can't imagine feeling that way, but it doesn't personally bother me. Contrast that to the way that the Favre backers have acted, taking it personally (as if Favre were a family member or friend) and lecturing why he is due respect/how much we owe him/etc.

You can read what SC is saying to Woody. It's all out there on public display. Look at one post, look at the totality over the past 3 years. I've formed my opinion, and I want to hear yours. Is their three year "attack fest" ok and should we as a group collectively "allow it"? Note that there are "dozens" of other examples of this behavior, I just picked what I consider the most obvious one, and it isn't my attempt to single anyone out.

I also still want an answer to the question I've asked you twice. You asserted a statement that they were "not disrespected" and I want to understand why that's a fact, and that the way these people actually feel is inaccurate and crazy. I still don't understand the point you were trying to make.

Also, you spent a lot of time in paragraph two telling me about your personal reaction to all of this. I have no disagreement with that. What I want to understand is if you believe that others "ought" to do just as you do, or if there is some tolerance on your part that it is acceptable for different people to handle things differently? Or, must all of us accept whatever you or the rest of the "favre haters" choose to give us?

[Bossman641]

I don't know what SC said to Woody. If they have a problem, I think it would be more beneficial for the 2 of them to figure it out than for me to figure it out. I also don't know what was personally said to you. I know you pushed the envelope by saying that you expected the team to go 16-0. People called you out and said you were trying to cause a stir. You finally admitted that that's exactly what you were doing, but that it was done to try and teach a lesson to all those who had been overly optimistic to you in the past. To be honest, I didn't understand the point of your show.

It is a 2 way street in terms of criticism going back and forth. I don't know of any Favre haters that have left. There are probably 2 reasons for this. One, it's a lot easier to stick around since they are in the majority. Two, they aren't as sensitive. I know when Mobb or Woody posts about their respect/admiration for Favre I don't take it personally. I think they are wrong and can't imagine feeling that way, but it doesn't personally bother me. Contrast that to the way that the Favre backers have acted, taking it personally (as if Favre were a family member or friend) and lecturing why he is due respect/how much we owe him/etc.

You can read what SC is saying to Woody. It's all out there on public display. Look at one post, look at the totality over the past 3 years. I've formed my opinion, and I want to hear yours. Is their three year "attack fest" ok and should we as a group collectively "allow it"? Note that there are "dozens" of other examples of this behavior, I just picked what I consider the most obvious one, and it isn't my attempt to single anyone out.

I also still want an answer to the question I've asked you twice. You asserted a statement that they were "not disrespected" and I want to understand why that's a fact, and that the way these people actually feel is inaccurate and crazy. I still don't understand the point you were trying to make.

Also, you spent a lot of time in paragraph two telling me about your personal reaction to all of this. I have no disagreement with that. What I want to understand is if you believe that others "ought" to do just as you do, or if there is some tolerance on your part that it is acceptable for different people to handle things differently? Or, must all of us accept whatever you or the rest of the "favre haters" choose to give us?

"They" were personally disrespected in the past. I don't see that happening anymore, or anywhere close to the extent it was before. Do "these people" still feel disrespected or did they feel disrespected? Since this is all based on your communications with them, I have no idea.

Of course I have tolerance and understand it is acceptable for people to handle things differently. What I don't understand is why the Favre backers don't feel this way. Their own personal feelings aside, why is it not acceptable to hate Favre? Why do they not have tolerance for those who want to see Favre fail and enjoy seeing him make a fool of himself?

[Joemailman]

It's inevitable that people who have differing opinions on football matters will go after each other personally at times. Unfortunate, but inevitable. The real problem though is when someone decides to hijack a thread just to attack one or more posters. This thread was a football thread for 15 pages with no major problems.

However, then someone made a conscious decision to use the thread to attack others:

I would like to point out a couple of things. I'm sure the result will be nothing short of another little bash session but I don't care. How hypocritical of some of you!

Well she succeeded. How unfortunate, and how unfair. This should not go on, but on a forum that is almost completely unmoderated, I suppose it will continue. It is precisely why some good posters have left here.