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

Obviously some can't handle venturing off topic.

>From: "Jim Sigel" <drjimmy_mrjim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Jo...
>><No offense to your dad, but it sounds like he's fulfilling his *own* dream.
>My esteemed collegue from VT recently admonished another poster about his
>sweeping political "generalizations", but the good Kevin is guilty of that
>here methinks.

Oh great.
First of all, my "admonishment" (if that's what you want to call it) of another poster (Alan) was part of a retort to an unprovoked characterization of me.
Secondly, what I'm *now* "guilty of" was an opinion on why *a* person would be motivated to take 10yo basketball kids and yell at them.  That's a generalization?  Methinks not.  A bit presumptuous, but not a generalization.

>A man or woman in a position of coaching a team sport can indeed fall into the
>pitfall of "fulfilling his/her own dream" vicariously through the kids.  Sure
>that can happen.  But is a *rule of thumb* because the coach works his players
>hard?  No.  Hell no, fuck no, abso-fucking-lutely not.

She didn't say the coach was "working the kids hard".
She said the coach was "yelling at the kids"..."hard love".  I even made it clear that I was interpreting that not as "yelling in plays" or orders, or encouragement, but rather as yelling *at* the kids in an admonishing way.
If that's indeed what he's doing, in my book, he's taking it too seriously, should stop, and is possibly living out some dream to be a big-time coach.  But, not with 10 year olds.

Leave me out of this.
Jo asked for an opinion, I give it, and now I'm creating generalizations?
I don't think so.
It was a statement about *one* person.

>From: Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: an outlet 

And now for some *more* non-Who related "fun".
Yippee!  :-|

>>> I don't want to get into a discussion of this here,
>> Yeah, that's apparent. (caugh...cack)
>When I do, it'll be clear.

Oooooooooooooo. <quiver in my bones...>
If you didn't' want to discuss it, why raise it?
You clearly didn't have to.
But, far be it for you to not pounce on an opportunity.
Very nice, Alan.  Your opinion smells.

>> But who made *you* the inconsistency police?  Hmmmm?
>Pointing out that someone's speeding is far from the same thing as 
>arresting them for it.

So, you go around pointing out those you perceive as speeders?
"Ooooooooo!  Look, look look!  He's speeding!  He's inconsistent!"
A bit obsessive, but what ever blows your skirt up.

>> Take your inconsistency sniffing nose and smell out the stink coming 
>> from
>> your butt.
>That's quite the rhetorical technique you've developed.  Maybe it's 
>more effective on Vermonters.

Oooo, now Alan's going to start a Vermont vs. Texas thread!  Ya-fucking-hoo!

No Alan, just pointing out how you're farting on this list by trying to turn a harmless thread into a personal critique of me and my views.

Piss off.
No one, including me, gives a ratt's fuck what your opinion is of my consistency, my political views, etc., etc., etc.
Get it?

And you wonder why Paul wants the list to stay on topic.
Kevin in VT

Confidentiality Notice:
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.