Dear Greg Beaton,

[rockymtn devil]

I would like to see this debate, but I'd like to see it occur within the appropriate context. From comments I've seen regarding the column in the other Beaton thread, it appears that some have misread Mr. Beaton's column. It isn't complaining about not having a place to vent. In fact, mere logic would lead you to the conclusion that someone who is a "lurker" is not looking for a place to vent. That's what makes him, you know, a "lurker". So, the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not the DBR is a place to vent. It isn't, and despite the continuing insistence of some to attack that strawman, those of us who questioned some of moderating in recent weeks have never asserted that anyone has a right to post whatever they want.

To the point: I read Mr. Beaton's column as questioning the DBR owners' (not mods) attack on some Duke fans in the wake of the loss to WVU. His point is that criticism doesn't equate to being a bad fan--or a spoiled, fickle one to use the DBR's words. So, I would like to see the debate occur on that issue because otherwise it'll be two people (or groups of people) arguing two different issues and never getting anywhere.

[DukeDevilDeb]

... I agree that it would be good to set up such a debate to hopefully bring closure. Probably DBR and The Chronicle are two places it shouldn't be.

[Troublemaker]

I would like to see this debate, but I'd like to see it occur within the appropriate context. From comments I've seen regarding the column in the other Beaton thread, it appears that some have misread Mr. Beaton's column. It isn't complaining about not having a place to vent. In fact, mere logic would lead you to the conclusion that someone who is a "lurker" is not looking for a place to vent. That's what makes him, you know, a "lurker". So, the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not the DBR is a place to vent. It isn't, and despite the continuing insistence of some to attack that strawman, those of us who questioned some of moderating in recent weeks have never asserted that anyone has a right to post whatever they want.

Semantics. Fine, he doesn't want a place to vent, he wants a place where he can read venting since he's a lurker.

To the point: I read Mr. Beaton's column as questioning the DBR owners' (not mods) attack on some Duke fans in the wake of the loss to WVU. His point is that criticism doesn't equate to being a bad fan--or a spoiled, fickle one to use the DBR's words. So, I would like to see the debate occur on that issue because otherwise it'll be two people (or groups of people) arguing two different issues and never getting anywhere.

Does ANYONE agree that criticism makes a bad fan? I don't think so. So why would we want to see a debate about that when there's virtually no disagreement? It's a strawman. Criticism is allowed here, just not criticism against the rules.

[rockymtn devil]

Semantics. Fine, he doesn't want a place to vent, he wants a place where he can read venting since he's a lurker.



Does ANYONE agree that criticism makes a bad fan? I don't think so. So why would we want to see a debate about that when everyone or almost everyone would agree anyway? It's a strawman. Criticism is allowed here, just not criticism against the rules.

Why would anyone want to see the debate? Perhaps you should as the person who started this thread. If the debate is not about what I laid out in the previous post, then Jumbo has challenged someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about. Beaton's argument wasn't about the boards. It's about the DBR "Our Call" on the day after the loss to WVU. I'm simply pointing out that the debate needs to be within that context.

[Jumbo]

Why would anyone want to see the debate? Perhaps you should as the person who started this thread. If the debate is not about what I laid out in the previous post, then Jumbo has challenged someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about. Beaton's argument wasn't about the boards. It's about the DBR "Our Call" on the day after the loss to WVU. I'm simply pointing out that the debate needs to be within that context.

Uh, where did I give you the impression that I don't understand his column? Where did I "challenge someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about?"

Once again, here is what I wrote:
"Stop lurking. Sign up. I'll gladly debate you, one-on-one right here. You brought up some interesting points in your column. You also missed some critical ones. So come on down and let's hash this out. You and I. Right here. Let's do it."

[bfree]

Jumbo,

If you really want him to show up, repost your message and lock the thread until he contacts you. The responses in this thread practically guarantee he keeps lurking.

[rockymtn devil]

Uh, where did I give you the impression that I don't understand his column? Where did I "challenge someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about?"

Once again, here is what I wrote:
"Stop lurking. Sign up. I'll gladly debate you, one-on-one right here. You brought up some interesting points in your column. You also missed some critical ones. So come on down and let's hash this out. You and I. Right here. Let's do it."

You didn't and I didn't assert that you did. You selectively quoted me and took out the qualifier. It was a rhetorical response to Troublemaker who, along with others, appear to see the issue in the column as being about venting.

I wrote: "If the debate is not about what I laid out in the previous post, then Jumbo has challenged someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about."

This clearly says that you only challenged him to a debate on a topic that he didn't write about IF you wanted to debate the issue of being able to vent on the DBR boards. I never said--and in fact don't believe--that you wanted that to be the topic. Your initial post didn't specify the debate topic, so it's safe to assume that you, unlike others, correctly read it.

[Troublemaker]

You didn't and I didn't assert that you did. You selectively quoted me and took out the qualifier. It was a rhetorical response to Troublemaker who, along with others, appear to see the issue in the column as being about venting.

I wrote: "If the debate is not about what I laid out in the previous post, then Jumbo has challenged someone to a debate on a topic that the columnist didn't even write about."

This clearly says that you only challenged him to a debate on a topic that he didn't write about IF you wanted to debate the issue of being able to vent on the DBR boards. I never said--and in fact don't believe--that you wanted that to be the topic. Your initial post didn't specify the debate topic, so it's safe to assume that you, unlike others, correctly read it.

His entire column attacks a strawman, as virtually nobody agrees that criticism makes a bad fan, nor does DBR disallow criticism. It's a specific type of criticism that is disallowed here. So either (a) Beaton doesn't understand that, or (b) Beaton does understand that but he is saying ALL types of criticism should be allowed, including venting. So yes, one possibly correct interpretation of his column is that it's about venting.

[BlueintheFace]

This is one of the silliest threads I have read on the boards yet. Greg makes some (unfortunately) good points, but he would be an absolute fool to show up to a game that has already been decided. Would you do it?

Here's an interesting idea. Lets set up a poll that has a link to the article and the question, "How do you feel about Greg Beaton's point regarding the DBR- be honest"

a) strongly agree
b) mostly agree
c) On the fence
d) mostly disagree
e) strongly disagree

I would love to know how us "non-lurkers" really feel

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

If you really want him to show up, repost your message and lock the thread until he contacts you. The responses in this thread practically guarantee he keeps lurking.

An interesting idea. If he shows up, I'll definitely make it so no one else can post in the "debate" other than the two of us.

Anybody know Beaton? Want to point him this way?

[Jumbo]

This is one of the silliest threads I have read on the boards yet. Greg makes some (unfortunately) good points, but he would be an absolute fool to show up to a game that has already been decided. Would you do it?

Here's an interesting idea. Lets set up a poll that has a link to the article and the question, "How do you feel about Greg Beaton's point regarding the DBR- be honest"

a) strongly agree
b) mostly agree
c) On the fence
d) mostly disagree
e) strongly disagree

I would love to know how us "non-lurkers" really feel

How has the "game been decided?" I want to debate his column based on its merits. That's it.

[Cavlaw]

Meh. Frankly I had the impression that this debate was had among J&B, the Mods, and participating users last week. I'm not sure why a non-participant lurker warrants special attention and a renewed debate.

[Troublemaker]

This is one of the silliest threads I have read on the boards yet. Greg makes some (unfortunately) good points, but he would be an absolute fool to show up to a game that has already been decided. Would you do it?

How is the game decided? They could each make their points, and then you can decide in your own mind who made the better points. There's no officially declared winner. There could be dozens of legitimate reasons why Beaton doesn't take up Jumbo on his challenge. One of those reasons is NOT "the game is already decided."

[BlueintheFace]

How is the game decided? They could each make their points, and then you can decide in your own mind who made the better points. There's no officially declared winner. There could be dozens of legitimate reasons why Beaton doesn't take up Jumbo on his challenge. One of those reasons is NOT "the game is already decided."

Well, isn't it a little like Howard Dean (Democratic Party chairman) going in to the Republican Convention this summer and arguing why some of their conservative policies are wrong. Obviously, most people there would feel a sense of belonging to the party and consequently discount many of his points without really evaluating them.

Most people who actually post on this board feel very loyal to it and have a sense of belonging. There is a lot of dogmatic loyalty here so there just isn't any reason for Greg to debate on this board...

[Jumbo]

Well, isn't it a little like Howard Dean (Democratic Party chairman) going in to the Republican Convention this summer and arguing why some of their conservative policies are wrong. Obviously, most people there would feel a sense of belonging to the party and consequently discount many of his points without really evaluating them.

Most people who actually post on this board feel very loyal to it and have a sense of belonging. There is a lot of dogmatic loyalty here so there just isn't any reason for Greg to debate on this board...

And there is an easy way to deal with it. 1) We can make the thread available only to me and Beaton. 2) We can debate elsewhere.

The point is, Beaton dragged the DBR into his column, so he created this part of the issue. If he won't discuss his gripes with the people he called out, he's a coward.

[Troublemaker]

Well, isn't it a little like Howard Dean (Democratic Party chairman) going in to the Republican Convention this summer and arguing why some of their conservative policies are wrong. Obviously, most people there would feel a sense of belonging to the party and consequently discount many of his points without really evaluating them.

Most people who actually post on this board feel very loyal to it and have a sense of belonging. There is a lot of dogmatic loyalty here so there just isn't any reason for Greg to debate on this board...

Then why did you make the following suggestion?

Here's an interesting idea. Lets set up a poll that has a link to the article and the question, "How do you feel about Greg Beaton's point regarding the DBR- be honest"

a) strongly agree
b) mostly agree
c) On the fence
d) mostly disagree
e) strongly disagree

I would love to know how us "non-lurkers" really feel

Such a poll implies that people are capable of evaluating his points, no?

[BlueintheFace]

The point is, Beaton dragged the DBR into his column, so he created this part of the issue. If he won't discuss his gripes with the people he called out, he's a coward.

No, he is a columnist...

[Jumbo]

No, he is a columnist...

And I am a journalist. You can be a journalist and still be a coward.

[BlueintheFace]

Then why did you make the following suggestion?

This suggestion came on the tail end of my assertion that he would be a fool to debate. I made it to hopefully prove how biased the-- "jury"/ posters who would inevitably comment on the debate-- would be. Even if you close the debate thread, people would comment on it and I feel that a poll would prove just how biased we all would be.

[BlueintheFace]

And I am a journalist. You can be a journalist and still be a coward.

Imagine if columnists debated with every group or person they offended with their viewpoints...