Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) (/thread-21846.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) (/thread-21846.html)
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - spike5882 - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 02:22 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There's no need for disguise in this day and age. Fewer and fewer women wear skirts, more's the pity. (God, do I miss the miniskirt.) Eliminate the social inhibitors, and no one's going to bother.
But this misses the larger point. If even a small minority of women are bothered by the possibility - and my sense is that it's a much larger number than a small minority, don't their concerns matter? Don't they have the right to be safe from assault, but even worry about the possibility? When did that cease to matter?
(And no, I don't think men's restrooms are dangerous for transgenders. I'm aware of no case in which a sexual assault against a transgender occurred in such a place. Correct me if you find one.)
Tons of reports and studies re: sexual assault of transgendered in bathrooms. So, not really an opinion -- it happens pretty frequently, unfortunately.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/
And yes, those women with concern have the right to feel concerned. They have the right to feel however they want (as we all do.) And I wouldn't tell them to feel otherwise -- that is their prerogative.
Laws though are supposed to remove the feelings and be based on facts. There hasn't been a single incident reported of a transgendered person assaulting a woman in a bathroom. Nor has any city which allows transgendered people into either bathroom (or require gender neutral bathrooms) produced any shred of evidence that it leads to predators dressing up women to sexually assault women in the bathroom. Literally, not one. On the flip side, there's plenty of evidence that transgendered women using a male restroom leads to sexual assault pretty often. So, sure, feel concerned with no factual basis; you are allowed to, and I have no desire to try to tell you that you are right or wrong for it. But when it comes to laws, I can sit and cite sources all day long that very heavily favor one side from a factual perspective; and that is what laws should be based on, not feelings.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - DC 86 - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 11:10 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Genuine Realist - 02-19-2022
(02-19-2022, 03:50 PM)spike5882 Wrote:That's an interesting study and may change my opinion. However, I also note that the study reports that 1 in 4 of ordinary high school students reports being assaulted in the last year, which is an eyebrow raising number. Seriously? I'm reminded of the feminist studies of a generation ago that reported astronomical rates of rape - similar to the 1 in 4 - and were almost universally decried by everyone, until resurrected a few years ago by some very dubious DOE policy.(02-19-2022, 02:22 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote: There's no need for disguise in this day and age. Fewer and fewer women wear skirts, more's the pity. (God, do I miss the miniskirt.) Eliminate the social inhibitors, and no one's going to bother.
But this misses the larger point. If even a small minority of women are bothered by the possibility - and my sense is that it's a much larger number than a small minority, don't their concerns matter? Don't they have the right to be safe from assault, but even worry about the possibility? When did that cease to matter?
(And no, I don't think men's restrooms are dangerous for transgenders. I'm aware of no case in which a sexual assault against a transgender occurred in such a place. Correct me if you find one.)
Tons of reports and studies re: sexual assault of transgendered in bathrooms. So, not really an opinion -- it happens pretty frequently, unfortunately.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/transgender-teens-restricted-bathroom-access-sexual-assault/
And yes, those women with concern have the right to feel concerned. They have the right to feel however they want (as we all do.) And I wouldn't tell them to feel otherwise -- that is their prerogative.
Laws though are supposed to remove the feelings and be based on facts. There hasn't been a single incident reported of a transgendered person assaulting a woman in a bathroom. Nor has any city which allows transgendered people into either bathroom (or require gender neutral bathrooms) produced any shred of evidence that it leads to predators dressing up women to sexually assault women in the bathroom. Literally, not one. On the flip side, there's plenty of evidence that transgendered women using a male restroom leads to sexual assault pretty often. So, sure, feel concerned with no factual basis; you are allowed to, and I have no desire to try to tell you that you are right or wrong for it. But when it comes to laws, I can sit and cite sources all day long that very heavily favor one side from a factual perspective; and that is what laws should be based on, not feelings.
The question it raises is how sexual assault is defined. The rate is so high that it would justiofy a considerable police presence on campus and in bathrooms, but I'm aware of no place that has done that.
Also, law absolutely deals with public attitudes and quieting fear and anxiety.
(02-19-2022, 04:37 PM)DC 86 Wrote:I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.(02-19-2022, 11:10 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - M T - 02-20-2022
Great for us to be having this discussion at a high level.
Obviously, one example doesn't make a general rule, but we've had an example of two people competing this week. who changed or are changing their gender
Why didn't she compete in the 1000 and 1650 where she was a hands-down favorite to blow the field away? She was entered in the 1650 but apparently scratched it ahead of the 1st heat. Her seed time was 22 seconds ahead of what won the event.
EDIT: I understand now. Without her, her teammates won 1,2,4,8 in the 1000 and 1,3,5,6 in the 1650
As I already mentioned, it seemed her lead-off leg on Wednesday's 800 Free Relay was pedestrian for her. She went out in a 51.5 and came back in a 53.0. That's a fairly even split (remember, in swimming you get a big advantage with a start). It was a tight finish at the end of her leg. She was first to touch, but only by 0.15. Her team finished second by 1.7 seconds. But her time earlier in the year was 2.5 seconds faster. If she was still training hard, that could explain it, but just barely.
Her only individual swim on Thursday was the 500 free, where her time was 3 seconds slower than earlier in the season, but still won by 7 seconds. She already had a NCAA A time (meaning she's guaranteed a spot at Nationals). Her 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 50s were 28.4 each, while the next 5 were 27.9, with a final 26.8. I'm not real familiar with swimming the 500, but that looks like she took it out intentionally slow and had a good bit left over. That seems consistent with cruising to a victory. In her December swim, her splits were consistent (except 1st & last), 27.63 to 27.81.
She had a 22.61 on the 2nd leg of the 200 Free relay. Since Thomas isn't a sprinter, it isn't surprising that 5 swimmers were faster than her, including Iszac Henig who is transitioning to the male gender and won the 50y Free in 21.93. (Henig reportedly has delayed hormone treatments to allow continuing to compete as a female.)
On Friday, Lia Thomas hadn't entered the 1000 Free which would have been the first race of the finals, only the 200 Free and a leg on the 400 Medley Relay. If you had a burning desire to swim the 200 where you have a relatively easy win, rather than the 1000 where you have a trivial win, ok. She already had an A time (1:41.93 (50.66,51.23)), so she didn't need to swim the 200 in this meet to get to the NCAAs in the event.
In the prelims, she went 52.44 and 52.47 (1:44.91), effectively a negative split 200 and qualified first by 1.7 seconds. But in the finals, she was 52.14 - 50.98 (1:43.12). That's a crazy negative split. and over a second slower than her time earlier in the year. In the finals, the next closes delta time between the two 100s was 1.2 seconds slower in the 2nd 100 than her first.
At the end of Friday night, Thomas swam a 49.83 (relay start 24.02, 25.81) for the free leg of the 400 MR. She finished 0.15 out of 3rd, so she was in a tight race (but 4 lanes away). That's an incredibly slow time for her. And, on a relay, taking her team down with her.
On Saturday, Thomas swam the individual 100 Free against Iszac Henig. Thomas won with a 23.17-24.46 (47.63), while Henzig swam 23.06-24.76 (47.82). 3rd place was one second behind them. (I can't imagine swimming the last leg of a 400MR 2.2 seconds slower than I could swim individually.) These swims weren't NCAA A times, but it likely will get them to swim at Nationals.
At the end of the night, Thomas swam a 23.38-24.76 (48.14) on the lead-off leg of the 400 Free Relay. Did they put her first to get clean water, or to give her another chance to make an A time?
----
I find Thomas's performance to be beyond puzzling. First there's the bypassing two events that she would have easy victories in and apparently concentrating on the 100 Free where it was a toss-up, when Thomas has traditionally been a long-distance swimmer. Then there's the insanely negative split on the 200 free and still being a second slower than her season's best. (I would call that playing with your opponents.) Then there's the incredibly slow swim, costing her relay a 3rd place finish or even a 2nd place finish.
I considered whether she is no longer capable of swimming the times she swam as recently as December. Perhaps, but that's her fastest 100 Free as a female by quite a bit, and is getting into the range (0.5s slower) of her best as a male (47.15 in 2017).
I considered whether she might be sick, resulting in a short-term inability to do the longer races. But the very negative split would be hard to do if you were sick. I could see that for whatever reason she is going out slow and swimming a much faster back half -- but only on some of her races.
I considered whether she is concealing what she is capable of ("sandbagging"). Perhaps she only swam the 100 Free just fast enough to win. But then why would she allow the relay to lose 3rd?
I considered whether she is trying to win the 100, 200, 500, and/or 1650 at Nationals (I believe someone can only swim 3 events). I don't think she has the speed to win the 100 (her time this weekend would be seeded 11th). She's currently ranked 1st in the 200(Dec. time) and 500 (Dec. time). No time ranked in the 1000 but her reported time would be ranked 3rd (not swum at Nationals). 10th in the 1650 (only swim was December). As covered earlier, Will Thomas's times are all very much faster than the top women's times in the 500-1650.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - DC 86 - 02-20-2022
(02-19-2022, 04:58 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:Quote:I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.Quote:One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
I never decried stridency per se, only your defense of inconsistent message board and real life tone. I would have made the same exact "rather strident characterization" if we were having an in-person conversation, that was my point.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Genuine Realist - 02-20-2022
(02-20-2022, 11:30 AM)DC 86 Wrote:Have to disagree. Flesh-and-blood stridency is can be very unpleasant for bystanders, leads to pretty heated emotions, and you can't retreat for a cooling off period, as you can online.(02-19-2022, 04:58 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:Quote:I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.Quote:One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
I never decried stridency per se, only your defense of inconsistent message board and real life tone. I would have made the same exact "rather strident characterization" if we were having an in-person conversation, that was my point.
I have a friend whose politics have gone from disappointment that he couldn't vote for a third term for Clinton to enthusiastic support for Trump. (Neither position matches my own.) He's always loaded for bear, but has the good sense to defer in social situations, as our spouses, gentle persons, would be extremely uncomfortable. But he can blaze away online without doing any social indignity to anyone.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - TheWildJacko - 02-20-2022
(02-20-2022, 01:13 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(02-20-2022, 11:30 AM)DC 86 Wrote:Have to disagree. Flesh-and-blood stridency is can be very unpleasant for bystanders, leads to pretty heated emotions, and you can't retreat for a cooling off period, as you can online.(02-19-2022, 04:58 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:Quote:I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.Quote:One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
I never decried stridency per se, only your defense of inconsistent message board and real life tone. I would have made the same exact "rather strident characterization" if we were having an in-person conversation, that was my point.
I have a friend whose politics have gone from disappointment that he couldn't vote for a third term for Clinton to enthusiastic support for Trump. (Neither position matches my own.) He's always loaded for bear, but has the good sense to defer in social situations, as our spouses, gentle persons, would be extremely uncomfortable. But he can blaze away online without doing any social indignity to anyone.
But in that situation, isn’t he still affecting the person on the other end of the computer? Does that factor into the equation?
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - DC 86 - 02-20-2022
(02-20-2022, 01:13 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(02-20-2022, 11:30 AM)DC 86 Wrote:Have to disagree. Flesh-and-blood stridency is can be very unpleasant for bystanders, leads to pretty heated emotions, and you can't retreat for a cooling off period, as you can online.(02-19-2022, 04:58 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:Quote:I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.Quote:One of my pleasures with the old CEB was the opportunity to express myself with a stridency I would never used (sic) in flesh-and-blood life.
I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
I never decried stridency per se, only your defense of inconsistent message board and real life tone. I would have made the same exact "rather strident characterization" if we were having an in-person conversation, that was my point.
I have a friend whose politics have gone from disappointment that he couldn't vote for a third term for Clinton to enthusiastic support for Trump. (Neither position matches my own.) He's always loaded for bear, but has the good sense to defer in social situations, as our spouses, gentle persons, would be extremely uncomfortable. But he can blaze away online without doing any social indignity to anyone.
We'll have to disagree. "Blazing away online" is a form of cowardly bullying that undermines the purpose of a message board and probably leaves the recipient with less (or no) desire to further participate in whatever discussions are taking place.
I actually have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to "blaze away" IRL and accept the consequences as opposed to being a jerk while hiding behind a keyboard.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Genuine Realist - 02-21-2022
(02-20-2022, 04:43 PM)DC 86 Wrote:Amusing. I'm not the one being strident here.(02-20-2022, 01:13 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(02-20-2022, 11:30 AM)DC 86 Wrote:Have to disagree. Flesh-and-blood stridency is can be very unpleasant for bystanders, leads to pretty heated emotions, and you can't retreat for a cooling off period, as you can online.(02-19-2022, 04:58 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:Quote:I hold the exact opposite view. The bane of message boards are keyboard warriors being "strident" in a way that they would never be IRL. I have never posted something in a manner that I wouldn't say (or haven't said) to someone standing right in front of me. To do otherwise is the height of cowardice. Controversy is interesting and presenting different views is the point of all this, but we need less "stridency" based on hiding behind the protection of a computer screen.I have to note that 'height of cowardice' is a rather strident characterization to use in a post decrying stridency.
In any case, you are not dealing with the whole personality on an Internet chat board, but an Internet avatar. I enjoy the give and take and never take anything personally.
I never decried stridency per se, only your defense of inconsistent message board and real life tone. I would have made the same exact "rather strident characterization" if we were having an in-person conversation, that was my point.
I have a friend whose politics have gone from disappointment that he couldn't vote for a third term for Clinton to enthusiastic support for Trump. (Neither position matches my own.) He's always loaded for bear, but has the good sense to defer in social situations, as our spouses, gentle persons, would be extremely uncomfortable. But he can blaze away online without doing any social indignity to anyone.
We'll have to disagree. "Blazing away online" is a form of cowardly bullying that undermines the purpose of a message board and probably leaves the recipient with less (or no) desire to further participate in whatever discussions are taking place.
I actually have a lot more respect for someone who is willing to "blaze away" IRL and accept the consequences as opposed to being a jerk while hiding behind a keyboard.
But more to the point, you have now twice called me cowardly (by implication) online, which I doubt is language you have ever, or would ever, use in flesh-and-blood situations, if only because there's at least an outside chance you'll be punched in the mouth. Those are 'fighting words' to many men. So I think we can add hypocritical to the list of adjectives. If you call out people in social gatherings, you are one of a kind, in my experience. But you are bolder here, and rightly so. I'd be an idiot if it angered me, and it doesn't. That's the point of the Intrrnet
In any case, it you travel around in circles in which people become polemical, good luck to you. They for sure as hell aren't mine. These are times that are rather politically intense, and most people like to enjoy each other's company rather than debate issues.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BostonCard - 02-21-2022
I’ve interacted with GR online for over 20 years now, I think, both on forums such as these and in personal correspondence. I don’t agree with everything he every posts, including in this thread. But I don’t find his “stridency” problematic in the least, as it has never, in my opinion, crossed the line into disrespect.
Pseudonimity can certainly lead to asshattery pretty quickly, and I think was the downfall of the Bootleg current events board. On the other hand, humans being the social creatures that we are, real life tends to lead to a fair degree of avoidance of controversial subjects. This thread is a good example of that; while I am sure you might have like-minded people talking amongst themselves about how good or bad Lea Smith’s competing in the NCAA as a woman is, genuine discussions like this one are rare.
As long as Yvonne can keep this place collegial, I personally welcome the fact that most people can state their opinions in an unvarnished fashion.
BC
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Genuine Realist - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 10:05 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’ve interacted with GR online for over 20 years now, I think, both on forums such as these and in personal correspondence. I don’t agree with everything he every posts, including in this thread. But I don’t find his “stridency” problematic in the least, as it has never, in my opinion, crossed the line into disrespect.
Pseudonimity can certainly lead to asshattery pretty quickly, and I think was the downfall of the Bootleg current events board. On the other hand, humans being the social creatures that we are, real life tends to lead to a fair degree of avoidance of controversial subjects. This thread is a good example of that; while I am sure you might have like-minded people talking amongst themselves about how good or bad Lea Smith’s competing in the NCAA as a woman is, genuine discussions like this one are rare.
As long as Yvonne can keep this place collegial, I personally welcome the fact that most people can state their opinions in an unvarnished fashion.
BC
Has it been 20 years? That's horrible.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BostonCard - 02-21-2022
I joined the bootleg in medical school, I think during my first year, which would have been in 1999. I believe you were already a stalwart, since I think LW’s epic “they’re not young, they’re bad” ironically occurred before the 1999 season, which ended with us going to the Rose Bowl.
22 years later, though, my memory may have confused a few things.
But it has been a while.
BC
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - slide - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I joined the bootleg in medical school, I think during my first year, which would have been in 1999. I believe you were already a stalwart, since I think LW’s epic “they’re not young, they’re bad” ironically occurred before the 1999 season, which ended with us going to the Rose Bowl.
22 years later, though, my memory may have confused a few things.
But it has been a while.
BC
at least that long. still scarred by a correction on Ockham's razor -- not by the Ockham's razor portion, but the lead-in to it. :)
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BobK - 02-21-2022
The fax first then on line Dec 1998. Thanks to a current poster who said the on line is fun all these Drs and lawyers arguing about how they would coach the football team.
lex24 - lex24 - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 11:52 AM)BobK Wrote: The fax first then on line Dec 1998. Thanks to a current poster who said the on line is fun all these Drs and lawyers arguing about how they would coach the football team.
LOL.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - Genuine Realist - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I joined the bootleg in medical school, I think during my first year, which would have been in 1999. I believe you were already a stalwart, since I think LW’s epic “they’re not young, they’re bad” ironically occurred before the 1999 season, which ended with us going to the Rose Bowl.
22 years later, though, my memory may have confused a few things.
But it has been a while.
BC
I was around in 1998. I adopted the handle 'Genuine Realist' in response to Long Winded, who was driving everyone nuts and did not know what he was talking about. It has nothing to do with political or social issues, though I guess it sounds like that.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BigJohn043 - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 10:05 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I’ve interacted with GR online for over 20 years now, I think, both on forums such as these and in personal correspondence. I don’t agree with everything he every posts, including in this thread. But I don’t find his “stridency” problematic in the least, as it has never, in my opinion, crossed the line into disrespect.
Pseudonimity can certainly lead to asshattery pretty quickly, and I think was the downfall of the Bootleg current events board. On the other hand, humans being the social creatures that we are, real life tends to lead to a fair degree of avoidance of controversial subjects. This thread is a good example of that; while I am sure you might have like-minded people talking amongst themselves about how good or bad Lea Smith’s competing in the NCAA as a woman is, genuine discussions like this one are rare.
As long as Yvonne can keep this place collegial, I personally welcome the fact that most people can state their opinions in an unvarnished fashion.
BC
I really strongly agree with this. And the Stanford boards have always been pretty good this way. While the online format can lead to bad behavior it also creates better conversations in a place like this.
GR's friend who blazes away online is likely doing it in places where that kind of behavior is tolerated. That is fine and it is generally easy to just not participate if you don't want to.
Like some others, I have been around since the "Rogue Rebel of Restroom Reading". I enjoy this community immensely and I guess I am just old enough not really get offended....
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - DC 86 - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 08:57 AM)Genuine Realist Wrote: But more to the point, you have now twice called me cowardly (by implication) online, which I doubt is language you have ever, or would ever, use in flesh-and-blood situations, if only because there's at least an outside chance you'll be punched in the mouth. Those are 'fighting words' to many men. So I think we can add hypocritical to the list of adjectives. If you call out people in social gatherings, you are one of a kind, in my experience. But you are bolder here, and rightly so. I'd be an idiot if it angered me, and it doesn't. That's the point of the Intrrnet
In any case, it you travel around in circles in which people become polemical, good luck to you. They for sure as hell aren't mine. These are times that are rather politically intense, and most people like to enjoy each other's company rather than debate issues.
Incorrect. As I've said repeatedly, anything I write online I am willing to say to you or anyone else, face to face in real life. So you are wrong in calling me a hypocrite. I'm not being "bolder" here, that's uninformed and unfair speculation on your part.
I'm not a polemical person and don't enjoy "blazing away" which you are defending. You subscribe to one standard for online behavior and another for flesh and blood behavior, that's your right. I don't happen to subscribe to that philosophy.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - lex24 - 02-21-2022
(02-21-2022, 01:03 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:(02-21-2022, 11:15 AM)BostonCard Wrote: I joined the bootleg in medical school, I think during my first year, which would have been in 1999. I believe you were already a stalwart, since I think LW’s epic “they’re not young, they’re bad” ironically occurred before the 1999 season, which ended with us going to the Rose Bowl.
22 years later, though, my memory may have confused a few things.
But it has been a while.
BC
I was around in 1998. I adopted the handle 'Genuine Realist' in response to Long Winded, who was driving everyone nuts and did not know what he was talking about. It has nothing to do with political or social issues, though I guess it sounds like that.
Memories of sock drawers:) Hope all is well, GR.
RE: Ledecky's NCAA record at risk. Should it be? Too Controversial of a Topic? (merged) - BostonCard - 02-21-2022
I think I joined in the fall of 1999, my first year of medical school when a classmate and friend told me about this Stanford sports website he was helping to run. This while he was still in grad school, I think.
BC
(02-21-2022, 11:52 AM)BobK Wrote: The fax first then on line Dec 1998. Thanks to a current poster who said the on line is fun all these Drs and lawyers arguing about how they would coach the football team.
Lol, some things never change.
BC