[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Blount

At 09:55 PM 3/23/2004, Tammo29@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>I don't think anyone questions his right to look elsewhere. <<<

**Oh I'm sure some do, but that wasn't my point, was it.**


I don't know, but it was my point and that's why I wrote it.

Well yes, but when you say something after including quoted text of mine, it appears to be in response to something I said. In this case, as if that was a point I was making.

>>>>But there are more
professional ways to go about letting your feelings be known rather then
yapping about how you're out of here in the locker room and the team bus. How
does that help foster team unity? Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago people
were talking about Blount showing leadership?<<<<<<<

**Well try it out on the people who were. It certainly wasn't me, if anyone
was (I honestly don't recall it, but I don't read all of every post).**


Again, no one said you did. The word was PEOPLE, not YOU.
I'm not in the habit of making
things up. I certainly did read it. Here and elsewhere as well.
Here is one such post. It doesn't really matter who wrote it but the link
is here also for anyone who would like to know.

A - As above, the convention is that when you write in reply to something someone says, you are thought to be replying to them. So I assumed you were replying to me and thereby including me in that "people" ( It's a fairly common ploy to minimize the appearance of a direct attack, and one I've used myself.) Otherwise I really don't see why you would say that in reply to my post and actually quote what I said in doing so, because it didn't seem relevant to the points I was making, which had nothing to do with Blount's leadership or lack thereof, but was offering in response to what someone else had said a perspective I hadn't seen on why he might want to leave.

B - I didn't say you made it up. Au contraire I made a point of saying that even though I didn't recall it, I don't read all of every post. I said I didn't recall it because that meant that I didn't recall the context, which often explains something about what was said and why. The not read every post was said strictly to make it clear that I wasn't saying it didn't happen.

<snip>
>>>>Now we hear that some teammates and
staffers haven't been very happy with one of those two guys. But guess what?
It's not Davis I don't know about any of you but I don't want my leader
running
around talking about how he can't wait to leave. <<<<

**Come on Tammo, that's pure straw man argument. You're smarter than that.
Most people don't consider Blount a leader nor has he made any pretense to being
one. Blame him for things he deserves, not that sort of set up nonsense.**


Once again you fail to understand my point. It
wasn't that Blount is a horrible leader or any kind of leader really.

OK, you say you don't want your leader doing X, where X is things you have just castigated Blount for doing. Immediately before that you made reference to people referring to Blount as a leader. Surely you can see why I took that to mean a + b = c, thus creating a further attack on the idea of Blount as leader that I mistakenly thought you were including me among the proponents of, perhaps because I was defending him to some degree.

**It also opens questions about why your hero, who IS
officially tabbed team leader and calls himself such doesn't do more about the
fellowship problems there have been all year, without even getting into things he's
done that can be seen as counter to team unity.**
First of all, the only hero
I've ever had in my life was my grandfather and he passed away 8 years ago.

I'm sorry to hear that about your grandfather and that because of it my terminology apparently offended you. The terminology was an attempt to refer to what has always seemed a fairly clear bias without turning it into an active attack, which would open a pointless argument I really didn't want to get into. Obviously a failed attempt. My mistake.

Secondly, what fellowship problems would you be talking about? Besides the
incident in question I haven't heard anything about a lack of team unity. And
we have no idea what has been said to Blount or who might be saying it. Now do
we?

Nope, we don't have any idea.
Given all the discussion about a leadership void and associated other references to what I think would generally be seen as unity issues (even though they may not always use that term) here and elsewhere, including the media, it seemed a fair assumption that you had heard something.

Kim, I don't know why you can't seem
to respond to anything I write without being argumentative and condescending.
Maybe that's just your style because I've seen it in posts to others as
well. It is possible to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.

Yes it is, as are many other things.
At the same time, perhaps you can now see that that perception of argumentativeness runs both ways. Now that I understand that you are not actually talking to me when you reply to my post and quote something I said before making your reply I should be better about getting that. The problem with that confusion has usually arisen because of cases such as the leadership thing above, where I'm responding negatively to comments that seem to imply I hold positions almost offensively stupid or otherwise just wrong. A variation on putting words in my mouth to beat me over the head with them, which is admittedly one of my hot buttons. But one that seems to happen whenever you reply to a post of mine. The misconception on my part has been in a twisted way a compliment to you, as I consider you too smart to be simply misunderstanding my position and thinking I was that stupid or wrong, and so had assumed the effect was intentional.

I It's much easier to carry on a civil discussion when you don't feel like
you're being personally attacked.

Yup and again, see above two ways and misperceptions about what it means when you reply to something I said.
Civil enough?

OK, honest curiousity question to encourage civil discussion. Back to the leadership thing. Excluding Paul as captain, who I think is being put in a leadership position he isn't well suited to -that's intended as cutting him a bit of slack, not a criticism, BTW because it's not his fault he's not suited to it and I do believe he is trying. Who would you say is providing leadership on this team, how, and why (why do you say that person not why are they providing leadership, although if you want to answer that...)

Kim