5 years of internet posting has offered up this interesting observation

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That link IS what I said the first time. If you disagree with my observation, then simply provide ONE recruiting counter-example from the past two years. It's a simple challenge.

Gotta go, but one more comment on my example, Siliaga (or close to that spelling). IN talking about HC and academics you stated you didn't know which it was with him

Can you see what you are saying. You are so stuck in this idea it has to be academics or HC that even though you don't know, you are sure it has to be.

That my friend is digging into a position and then having to defend it at all costs. Absolute statements are always hard to defend. I simple, I overstaed it would do.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

The last kid is one example, Siliaga, or do you have inside information from TBS chat that he is an honor code problem.

Believe me that shit about academics and honor code gets old with not only Ute fans but a lot of BYU fans. Keep putting yourself (speaking of the my shit don't stink crowd) high on this lofty pedastal of morality, academics and people just lie in wait to knock you down. If it is that good you don't have to ram it down people's throats. They will see it.

Siliga falls into the "who knows?" category.

Let's look at this from another angle. Bronco is trying to evaluate how we're doing recruiting head-to-head against Utah and want to analyze why certain athletes went to Utah instead of BYU after being offered by BYU. This way he can minimize future losses.

What does his report tell him?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I think you are under the impression that the "peanut gallery" comment is much funnier than it really is. After post # 34,124 on the topic, it may be time for you to come up with something new, particularly in a thread where you are complaining about being put into certain categories by posters.

I don't think it's funny, I just think it's an apt description for one particular poster. There are plenty of people on this site that I regularly disagree with where we've still managed to have a meaningful and active exchange of ideas at one time or another.

That has never happened with Lebowski. Why? Because he doesn't even try to engage a differing viewpoint by articulating his own. He hasn't tried to do it in this thread either.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think it's funny, I just think it's an apt description for one particular poster. There are plenty of people on this site that I regularly disagree with where we've still managed to have a meaningful and active exchange of ideas at one time or another.

That has never happened with Lebowski. Why? Because he doesn't even try to engage a differing viewpoint by articulating his own. He hasn't tried to do it in this thread either.

Perhaps his self-applied term "pansy" would be more apt?

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...1&postcount=81

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Siliga falls into the "who knows?" category.

Let's look at this from another angle. Bronco is trying to evaluate how we're doing recruiting head-to-head against Utah and want to analyze why certain athletes went to Utah instead of BYU after being offered by BYU. This way he can minimize future losses.

What does his report tell him?

I think it reinforces somthing which I am sure he already knows. Human beings are complex and make decisions for a variety of reasons whether it be where to go to school or what to have for breakfast.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I don't think it's funny, I just think it's an apt description for one particular poster. There are plenty of people on this site that I regularly disagree with where we've still managed to have a meaningful and active exchange of ideas at one time or another.

That has never happened with Lebowski. Why? Because he doesn't even try to engage a differing viewpoint by articulating his own. He hasn't tried to do it in this thread either.

That's just bullshit, Indy, and you know it. There are plenty of threads where I have articulated my viewpoint in detail. You just choose to ignore that fact when it suits you.

You want my viewpoint on this thread? OK. The topic of this thread is your argument that many posters immediately assume that you believe the opposite of the poster simply because you point out a what you consider to be a fallacy in the reasoning. I think both Adam and BYU71 made excellent points about your tendency to nitpick at tangential issues or to speak in absolutes that paint yourself into a corner. I agree with both of those points but I think it goes farther than that. The reason you often get the reaction you do over here is because you cultivate it. There is an element of condescension and self-righteousness running through almost all of your posts. The thread started by Requiem the other day about choirs is a good case in point. You came late to the discussion and eventually made some decent points but they were couched in your typical condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Your first response was to put down everyone and everything in the thread:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

This is why the Religion forum on CG is becoming completely useless. It's an unending cycle of someone saying something only to have that statement deliberately misrepresented, ascribing mindless and baseless characterizations to that person and leaving nothing substantive as a response to the actual point made.

What a waste of 10 minutes that was browsing through this thread.

This was in spite of the fact that most of the posters had suggested that Requiem pursue the issue with the bishop in a peaceful manner, not putting him on the defensive. This is your standard M.O., Indy. You see yourself as some defender of truth and righteousness correcting all of us "borderline apostates" on CG. And then you have the balls to whine about being misunderstood. You follow a similar pattern with sports posts. Your well-documented condescension towards Ute fans and your whitewashed outlook on all things related to BYU football are legendary.

And I stand by my original comments on irony. For you to claim that you are misunderstood in spite of the fact that you post either here or over on CB every 35 seconds is quite a statement. I think you are struggling to accept the fact that maybe the problem is you. Or perhaps you really are misunderstood. In which case you must be an incredibly poor communicator.

Finally, I call bullshit on your claim that this thread is not about you specifically but that it applies "in general". If that were indeed true, it would mean that you alone somehow are able to magically discern what others "really believe". You can make that claim for yourself, but not others.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's just bullshit, Indy, and you know it. There are plenty of threads where I have articulated my viewpoint in detail. You just choose to ignore that fact when it suits you.

You want my viewpoint on this thread? OK. The topic of this thread is your argument that many posters immediately assume that you believe the opposite of the poster simply because you point out a what you consider to be a fallacy in the reasoning. I think both Adam and BYU71 made excellent points about your tendency to nitpick at tangential issues or to speak in absolutes that paint yourself into a corner. I agree with both of those points but I think it goes farther than that. The reason you often get the reaction you do over here is because you cultivate it. There is an element of condescension and self-righteousness running through almost all of your posts. The thread started by Requiem the other day about choirs is a good case in point. You came late to the discussion and eventually made some decent points but they were couched in your typical condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Your first response was to put down everyone and everything in the thread:



This was in spite of the fact that most of the posters had suggested that Requiem pursue the issue with the bishop in a peaceful manner, not putting him on the defensive. This is your standard M.O., Indy. You see yourself as some defender of truth and righteousness correcting all of us "borderline apostates" on CG. And then you have the balls to whine about being misunderstood. You follow a similar pattern with sports posts. Your well-documented condescension towards Ute fans and your whitewashed outlook on all things related to BYU football are legendary.

And I stand by my original comments on irony. For you to claim that you are misunderstood in spite of the fact that you post either here or over on CB every 35 seconds is quite a statement. I think you are struggling to accept the fact that maybe the problem is you. Or perhaps you really are misunderstood. In which case you must be an incredibly poor communicator.

Finally, I call bullshit on your claim that this thread is not about you specifically but that it applies "in general". If that were indeed true, it would mean that you alone somehow are able to magically discern what others "really believe". You can make that claim for yourself, but not others.

Holy Smackdown, Batman!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The thread started by Requiem the other day about choirs is a good case in point. You came late to the discussion and eventually made some decent points but they were couched in your typical condescending, holier-than-thou tone. Your first response was to put down everyone and everything in the thread:

Around half of that thread to that point consisted of SEIQ, Archaea and Mike of working Tex over, with Tex repeatedly having to respond along the lines of 'that wasn't what I said or was trying to say'.

This is your standard M.O., Indy. You see yourself as some defender of truth and righteousness correcting all of us "borderline apostates" on CG. And then you have the balls to whine about being misunderstood. You follow a similar pattern with sports posts. Your well-documented condescension towards Ute fans and your whitewashed outlook on all things related to BYU football are legendary.

There a little selective memory at play here. Yes, I enjoy challenging people on various topics; IMO that's a major raison d'etre for internet messageboards.

"Defender of truth and righteousness"? Hyperbole. Do I have strong opinions and feel I can back those opinions up? Yes. To be honest, don't most of us feel the same way?

And I stand by my original comments on irony. For you to claim that you are misunderstood in spite of the fact that you post either here or over on CB every 35 seconds is quite a statement. I think you are struggling to accept the fact that maybe the problem is you. Or perhaps you really are misunderstood. In which case you must be an incredibly poor communicator.

Finally, I call bullshit on your claim that this thread is not about you specifically but that it applies "in general". If that were indeed true, it would mean that you alone somehow are able to magically discern what others "really believe". You can make that claim for yourself, but not others.

Well, actually what caused me to start this thread was reading a couple of "let's beat up on Tex" threads. I've been guilty of this as well, particularly with Archaea and Waters.

But there have been many times where I've tried to explain my views in detail in response to someone's inaccurate claims about what I think, only to see that person immediately respond as if they never read what I had just said or they strain mightily to twist what I just said to fit their earlier mischaracterizations. Again, I'm not the only one around here that experiences this and when it happens, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

Am I the greatest communicator? Probably not, but I don't think most of what I write is that hard to understand.

I do appreciate that you took the time to respond in detail. Thanks. Let's have more substantive interactions in the future.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I do appreciate that you took the time to respond in detail. Thanks. Let's have more substantive interactions in the future.

Fair enough.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This was in spite of the fact that most of the posters had suggested that Requiem pursue the issue with the bishop in a peaceful manner, not putting him on the defensive.

Unfortunately, you were not one of them.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wow. What a sad story. I am with Archaea on this one. Go to the S.P. and raise some hell.

Reviewing that thread, it is remarkable how adamantly I was attacked for offering an alternative course of action. And quite calmly, I might add. All-American and creekster, while not agreeing with me, at least conversed in civil tones.

SIEQ and Waters on the other hand ...