I assume that this will be misinterpreted by some, attacked by others, and lightly skimmed by most on their way to goat porn. Such is life.
Recently, a link hit the front page at StR, concerning a certain local columnist's prediction for Game 7 of the NBA finals. Not surprisingly, it was greeted with irritation, name-calling, which was further spurred on by Ziller's excellent dismantling of Voison's analysis of the recent trade with Philly.
Let me be perfectly candid: I'm as big an a-hole as exists on this site, or anywhere on the intarwebs, even gaping a-holes.com. (Yes, it exists. I have not provided a link, to better prove my hypothesis.)
Having said that, even though I've disagreed with many of you from time to time, argued, used sarcasm and irony the way a sumo uses his mawashi, I've tried, often unsuccessfully, to keep it civil. I may disagree with a point you have made, and find it stupid, but definitely try not to assert that you may be stupid, even while trying to make the case that what you've written seems ridiculous. Hate the post, not the poster, I believe is how it goes. I acknowledge that I have not always been successful in this regard.
Now, my experience here is that there are definitely a lot of very sharp people tossing in their two cents. But as with any law of averages, someone has to be below average. That in itself is not meant to be hurtful or insulting. It's just math. I mean everyone's kids are geniuses, but there sure are a lot of stupid adults you deal with on any given day, right? It's no accident, it's just math, and things working out the way statistics insist they must.
In other words, I value every single one of you, in varying degrees.
Getting back to the two aforementioned articles, there were some cogent counterpoints made to Ailene's Game 7 piece, and some stuff that was just beneath contempt. I'm not trying to defend what she wrote, and especially not the snotty tone in which it was written. I simply don't think she deserves to be attacked in ways that deal with her personal life, or her appearance. It's tempting, and not difficult, admittedly, but I find, in most cases, this site has such a better class of contributors than so much of what's out there. It's not sacbee.com's fault that its boards attract such fascinating psychological case studies, I find that most newspapers have similar troll infestations, and given the state of the industry right now, no one higher up on the food chain than an unpaid college intern is moderating them.
I feel like we do a pretty good job of self-policing here, and the moderators catch most of the rest and handle it. Some of the Voison reaction struck me as a bit too far, and this is coming from someone who has said some remarkably unpleasant (albeit, true) things about Mother Teresa. She asked for a certain measure of raised finger from long-suffering Kings fans with the tone of her article about Game 7, but I feel the reaction since then, and added to in the response to Ziller's piece has really just been a little beyond the pale.
I freely acknowledge that I have used, and perhaps even had a hand in the coinage of the term "The Scarlet Douchebag" as a way to refer to Grant Napear. I will pathetically defend vitriol against Napear as somewhat more appropriate, given that "scarlet" in and of itself, is not an insult, and that there is overwhelming evidence of his consistent pegging of the Douche-O-Meter, in both his professional and personal life.
I also think Napear feels that if he isn't drawing this kind of fire, then maybe he isn't doing his job. He may be right.
A newspaper columnist has a similar job, but really isn't in the same position as a team mouthpiece, and I would suggest, given the bland nature of most of her writing, shouldn't expect the kind of bile spewed on occasion by the gentle readers here at StR.
As ever, I would rather have too much free speech than too little, and emphasize that it's never pretty speech that needs defending. What Ziller did with his scalpel is how it's done. But do whatcha gotta, I'm not your dad.
Well, not most of you.