Re: The generation gap

[Kim Malo <kmalo19@idt.net>]

At 03:43 PM 2/4/98 -0500, Jeremy Warren wrote:
>	Members on the list seem to be divided into two camps.  There's
>the "Let's wait and see what happens and enjoy the ride and not make trade
>suggestions because they may interrupt the positive growth that the
>Celtics are making."  The other one is more like "If there's a trade that
>can make us better let's do it and see what we can come up with on our
>own."  I think the difference in philosophy may be due to the generation
>gap. 

This is a vast oversimplification. Not wanting to do a given trade or
trades, or not varing for moist of the trade talk on the list is not the
same as taking an overall wait and see attitude. Not are all trade proposals
real arrempts to make the team better. Some have admitted to being change
for change's sake, and a larger number of them seem that way. Most seem
based on the idea of the grass always being greener on the other side -i.e.
just because another player isn't on our team that's losing games or doesn't
have the faults of our players, he MUST be better.

So, my own problem with most of the trade proposals is a matter of quality
as much as quantity, along with developing the opinion that some people seem
to care about nothing but trades -forgetting that the point is games and
winning them, not making deals. I long ago just stopped reading threads I
thought boring or silly. Which is what the original poster should have done,
since he really has no right to dictate what others say on the list. And
there obviously are plenty of other people who do want to talk about the
proposals.

I know I'm perfectly willing to have the Cs do deals that would actually
make them better, but I don't think most of the deals I see here would do
that. Or else they're just unrealistic. Which is not the same as wanting to
just wait and see and being more concerned about some positive karma than
winning games.

>I am 22 years old and probably a member of what many people call
>"Generation X".  I have always been an impatient person and prefer instant
>gratification over waiting patiently for things to just happen.  And I
>make no apologies for being this way; it's who I am.
>
>	I think some of the older members of the list have a tendency to
>prefer the status quo and fear change.

Ah yes, the reason I responded -hot button hit. Y'know, I'm pretty sure you
don't really mean to be offensive, but still. In your first paragraph, it's
only the ones who want to do trades (even stupid ones, since you don't
qualify them any way) who are interested in/trying to improve the team. And
the above is such a stereotype, making unwarrented assumptions. There are
older impatient people and young conservatives. And being opposed to certain
changes does not equate with 'fearing' (another probably unintentionally
offensive phrase -you can be opposed to something without fearing it, nor do
I see you speaking of those looking for trades as 'fearing' the consequences
of standing pat) change in general. 

<snip>
>
>	My point is that we all have different philosophies about what the
>team should do, what we as fans should discuss concerning the team, and
>how the team is doing this year.

This is true. Just points out that people are different and want different
things from the list. And contradicts your original point that those that
don't want trades feel that way just because they are *all* old fogies
quivering in heir seats at the idea of change and the younger generation
taking over (no, I know you didn't use those terms, but it's implied in what
you say). This should have been your point, not that the differences are
because of a generational gap. FWIW, I might mention that on the Cs
newsgroup, some of the ones most likely to oppose trades are in their teens.

>  But it's unfair to tell those of us who
>enjoy discussing trade ideas and speculation to stop doing it.

This also is true. More than just unfair -no one other than the listowners
have a right to dictate on the content of people's posts. It's something
that turns up all over usenet and on any list I've seen -people trying to
dictate overall content for everyone based upon their own personal taste.
Rather like insisting the grocery store should carry only one brand of OJ
for everyone, because you don't buy any other. I could do some age
stereotyping myself and say that this is because of the younger, self
centered, instant gratification generation's influence, <g> but I know it's
more widespread than that.

<snip>
>	I'll close by saying that if anyone is offended by anything I've
>written, I fall back on my first ammendment right to voice my opinion.
>But if I've hurt anyone's feelings, I regret that and apologize in
>advance.

Actually, that's not the unfettered right to say whatever you want to that
most people seem to think it is. Particularly on the net, which is not
restricted to US boundaries or US law... Even in the US, you don't have the
right to voice *any* opinion you might have. But that's offtopic and for
another list <g>

And, well, as I also above, I'm sure you didn't mean to be offensive. Maybe
the post you responded to didn't mean to be offensive either. But you both
were. However, your bottom line point -that we all have different tastes,
with equal rights to post on what interests us, so long as it is on-topic-
is dead on, and his isn't. If you don't like what others say, refute them
(as I did in pointing out where I thought you were offensive), ignore them,
or try to get the group tied up in a competing thread.

-Kim
Kim Malo
kmalo19@idt.net