Dear Greg Beaton,

[Jumbo]

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.

[greybeard]

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.

Now that's what I'm talking about! :cool:

[jmb]

because mr. beaton will soon have a duke diploma like the rest of us, i doubt he is stupid enough to be bullied into a debate in a forum where the leadership has created an atmosphere hostile to his view.

jumbo, it's easy for the gorilla to beat his chest and challenge the shark to come into the jungle to fight; the situation would be different were the gorilla to venture into the water

[FreezingDevil]

Seconded. However, I'm afraid that Greg prefers to hide in the safety of his column rather than confront the people he openly criticizes. If he wants to be considered a "journalist", he must not shy away from defending his words and embracing a debate.

[freedevil]

^ But he need not defend his words on someone else's terms.

[Troublemaker]

because mr. beaton will soon have a duke diploma like the rest of us, i doubt he is stupid enough

Well... considering Beaton just wrote an entire column based on a faulty premise, his intelligence isn't looking so good these days. It's not criticism that's disallowed here -- it's destructive criticism. A pretty simple distinction, but one he apparently doesn't understand.

[FreezingDevil]

Jumbo, it's easy for the gorilla to beat his chest and challenge the shark to come into the jungle to fight; the situation would be different were the gorilla to venture into the water

Also, I love the image of Jumbo as a massive, hairy Gorilla beating his chest. Well played, sir. well played :D

[Cavlaw]

Hmm, either he's schizophrenic or there are a lot of people responding that aren't Greg Beaston. :)

[Duvall]

because mr. beaton will soon have a duke diploma like the rest of us, i doubt he is stupid enough to be bullied into a debate in a forum where the leadership has created an atmosphere hostile to his view.

jumbo, it's easy for the gorilla to beat his chest and challenge the shark to come into the jungle to fight; the situation would be different were the gorilla to venture into the water

I think you may be giving Beaton too much credit.


At the same time, when your team loses it’s not blasphemy to suggest that the vaunted coach might be spending too much time moonlighting as Team USA’s coach, or to wonder if the team could use a new assistant, or to ask questions about why the team’s recruiting has slipped from what it once was.

Blasphemy, no. Trite, hackneyed and previously discussed ad nauseum, yes. All of the topics he suggests are appropriate sources for criticism have been discussed at length here in the past, and have been discussed here since the end of the season. Beaton should have explained why he feels it was so important to also have those discussions during the hours immediately following the WVU game.

Of course, it's not too late for him to do so.

[Jumbo]

because mr. beaton will soon have a duke diploma like the rest of us,
Many, many, MANY members of this website don't have a Duke diploma.


i doubt he is stupid enough to be bullied
Ah, so Greybeard, for instance, who went to Cornell, might be stupid because he doesn't have a "Duke diploma." Got it. And people wonder where that whole elitist rep comes from.


into a debate in a forum where the leadership has created an atmosphere hostile to his view.
"The leadership?" Who is that? The moderators? There's no environment hostile to his view. If he's man enough to write what he did, he should be man enough to actually discuss it with the people he ripped.


jumbo, it's easy for the gorilla to beat his chest and challenge the shark to come into the jungle to fight; the situation would be different were the gorilla to venture into the water

I would be happy to write a point-counterpoint with the Beaton in the Chronicle. More than happy. Thrilled. Problem is, it's kind of hard to debate back and forth because the paper is published, you know, once a day. I'm just asking for a nice constructive debate in this thread. Beaton can say what he wants. Why hide?

[Jumbo]

Also, I love the image of Jumbo as a massive, hairy Gorilla beating his chest. Well played, sir. well played :D

Yeah, I'm wondering how he found that picture of me. The cat (or gorilla) is out of the bag, I suppose.

[Wander]

I thought Beaton's stuff was actually much better than the junk that the Chronicle sports people usually write - like the recent "we as fans are owed a final four" bullcrap. And he's pretty clearly right in his basic jab that DBR takes itself way too seriously, and that the standards are different for talking about Duke players vs other team's players. But I'm down to watch this gorilla vs. shark matchup...

[Jumbo]

I thought Beaton's stuff was actually much better than the junk that the Chronicle sports people usually write - like the recent "we as fans are owed a final four" bullcrap. And he's pretty clearly right in his basic jab that DBR takes itself way too seriously, and that the standards are different for talking about Duke players vs other team's players. But I'm down to watch this gorilla vs. shark matchup...

If he's right, there's no reason why he should be afraid to debate his points.

[Wander]

If he's right, there's no reason why he should be afraid to debate his points.

Oh I agree. I don't think he's right on everything, either - I obviously don't agree with him that posting on DBR doesn't have any value, for example. Just kinda playing devil's advocate a little since I think some of the bashing of him on this thread by other posters is a little unnecessary.

[Channing]

I thought Beaton's stuff was actually much better than the junk that the Chronicle sports people usually write - like the recent "we as fans are owed a final four" bullcrap. And he's pretty clearly right in his basic jab that DBR takes itself way too seriously, and that the standards are different for talking about Duke players vs other team's players. But I'm down to watch this gorilla vs. shark matchup...

again - are people shocked that at DUKEbasketballreport.com there is a bias towards DUKE basketball players? I will recommend what I find to be the best college sports message board that is not linked to any specific team: www.talkncaa.com.

[Jumbo]

Oh I agree. I don't think he's right on everything, either - I obviously don't agree with him that posting on DBR doesn't have any value, for example. Just kinda playing devil's advocate a little since I think some of the bashing of him on this thread by other posters is a little unnecessary.

Yeah, I haven't even participated in that other thread. Heck, I'm even willing to move his little match a neutral site. So, where are you, Beaton? I'm waiting.

[DukeDevilDeb]

...put a link up to Beaton's folly?

Thank you.

[Jumbo]

...put a link up to Beaton's folly?

Thank you.

It is being discussed here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8532).

[SilkyJ]

Ah, so Greybeard, for instance, who went to Cornell, might be stupid because he doesn't have a "Duke diploma." Got it. And people wonder where that whole elitist rep comes from.


That's not what he was saying at all, and you know it. He was just saying that Beaton is smart enough to know that it would be stupid of him to come down here and debate it on your terms, which it would be.

[Jumbo]

That's not what he was saying at all, and you know it. He was just saying that Beaton is smart enough to know that it would be stupid of him to come down here and debate it on your terms, which it would be.

No, I don't know it. And how would it be on "my terms?" I'm willing to debate him on any place where we can reply with messages to one another. There are no "terms" attached.

[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.

:rolleyes: 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...

[Jumbo]

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


That's a straw man. We're talking about a group that was the focus of Beaton's column. He didn't even pick up a phone to interview someone from that group. It's one thing to debate everyone who disagrees with you. That's unreasonable. It's another to actually address the people you target. Again, avoiding the latter -- especially since it is simple and not time-consuming -- is cowardly. I say that as a journalist, not a Duke fan.

[Stray Gator]

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

Then the readers would be able to hear both sides and, perhaps, be better equipped to distinguish the true facts from the baseless assumptions, and ultimately to formulate more reasoned, balanced judgments about their own beliefs. Of course, we don't have that luxury with every column or op-ed piece that gets published. But here's a rare chance for the "target" of this columnist's criticism--the DBR moderators--to defend themselves. Imagine anyone suggesting that fair debate and the search for truth should be suppressed so that a columnist can evade accountability for publishing an opinion critical of people who are guilty of providing a website for fans without charge on the condition that they adhere to certain standards of behavior?

[slower]

Good Lord, how many more days until the season starts?

[DukieGator]

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

For someone that claims to be so virtuous for not publicly bashing 21 year old kids, I find your level of bullying against Greg to be downright hypocritical. I also think that you--and many others on this board--are way too harsh on Chronicle reporters and columnists. Again, allow me to reiterate that when you bash Chronicle staffers, you're bashing 18-22 year olds. Also, keep in mind that these 18-22 year olds toil well into every night of every day of every week--for not a penny, mind you--to make the Chronicle available to the Duke community. Get some perspective, and give them a break.

I'm not saying you shouldn't question their opinions and engage in lively, civil debate. But what I am saying is you shouldn't resort to insults like calling him a coward. That's just bullying against someone who doesn't deserve it.

[Troublemaker]

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.

Uh huh. So when you said "I would love to know how us "non-lurkers" really feel," you actually meant "I already know." Anyway, this is getting too side-tracked. Three quick points: (1) I think there are people who like Beaton's column and would like to see him debate it, so I don't accept your assumption of the makeup of the audience, (2) maybe the column is just poor -- don't assume that people are biased if they happen to not like it, and (3) the strength of his viewpoints have nothing to do with the makeup of the audience, so he can, if he wishes, defend his viewpoints regardless of the alleged makeup, and if he defends them well enough, maybe he can change the minds of some of his audience.

[Jumbo]

For someone that claims to be so virtuous for not publicly bashing 21 year old kids, I find your level of bullying against Greg to be downright hypocritical. I also think that you--and many others on this board--are way too harsh on Chronicle reporters and columnists. Again, allow me to reiterate that when you bash Chronicle staffers, you're bashing 18-22 year olds. Also, keep in mind that these 18-22 year olds toil well into every night of every day of every week--for not a penny, mind you--to make the Chronicle available to the Duke community. Get some perspective, and give them a break.

I'm not saying you shouldn't question their opinions and engage in lively, civil debate. But what I am saying is you shouldn't resort to insults like calling him a coward. That's just bullying against someone who doesn't deserve it.

That is bunk [my edit -- based on user response]. You are attempting to draw a parallel between Chronicle staffers and Duke athletes. Here's the problem -- Duke athletes don't go out of their way to insult Chronicle staffers. The one big moment in Duke's history where this happened (K's locker room ambush following the infamous "report card") has drawn ire on this board almost two decades after the fact, led by ... me.

I'm well aware of the sacrifices that go into a college newspaper. But at a college newspaper, there are still standards that apply. You still have a choice of what to write. You have a voice that can offend others. You have a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner.

I haven't "bashed" this kid. Read my note again. I said he raised some interesting points, and that I want to debate him. The only thing remotely close to "bashing" would be calling him a coward if he refuses to actually engage in a healthy debate with the targets of his column. If you don't see how that's fair and not hypocritical then, well, you can lead a horse to water...

[Jumbo]

Then the readers would be able to hear both sides and, perhaps, be better equipped to distinguish the true facts from the baseless assumptions, and ultimately to formulate more reasoned, balanced judgments about their own beliefs. Of course, we don't have that luxury with every column or op-ed piece that gets published. But here's a rare chance for the "target" of this columnist's criticism--the DBR moderators--to defend themselves. Imagine anyone suggesting that fair debate and the search for truth should be suppressed so that a columnist can evade accountability for publishing an opinion critical of people who are guilty of providing a website for fans without charge on the condition that they adhere to certain standards of behavior?

You know, there's a reason why people tend to listen to you when you speak. Well put.

[Jumbo]

"As you know, our primary goals for these boards are to foster a sense of community among basketball fans, especially Duke fans, and to encourage intelligent discussion, debate, and commentary in a fun and civil atmosphere."

My bad. I will withdraw that comment and edit accordingly.

[SilkyJ]

No, I don't know it.

Yes you do. You're just being combative.

[DukieGator]

That is bunk [my edit -- based on user response]. You are attempting to draw a parallel between Chronicle staffers and Duke athletes. Here's the problem -- Duke athletes don't go out of their way to insult Chronicle staffers. The one big moment in Duke's history where this happened (K's locker room ambush following the infamous "report card") has drawn ire on this board almost two decades after the fact, led by ... me.

I'm well aware of the sacrifices that go into a college newspaper. But at a college newspaper, there are still standards that apply. You still have a choice of what to write. You have a voice that can offend others. You have a responsibility to behave in a respectable manner.

I haven't "bashed" this kid. Read my note again. I said he raised some interesting points, and that I want to debate him. The only thing remotely close to "bashing" would be calling him a coward if he refuses to actually engage in a healthy debate with the targets of his column. If you don't see how that's fair and not hypocritical then, well, you can lead a horse to water...

Read my post again. I never took issue with your original post in this thread, which asked Greg to engage in a debate with you. In fact, I thought it was a great idea, and was looking forward to where this thread was headed.

What I do take issue with, however, is your calling Greg a coward. As far as I can understand, you think he's a coward for two reasons: (1) for not immediately showing up here to debate you; and (2) for not doing some investigative reporting into all facets of the board shut-down a couple of weeks ago.

Your first count of cowardice is a bit unreasonable, in my opinion. Maybe he's in class? Maybe he's otherwise occupied? Whatever the case may be, it's harsh to call him a coward for not immediately taking up this debate. Maybe he'll get around to it later.

Your second count of cowardice seems decently reasonable to me. I agree that he should have investigated his points of criticism a bit further before tearing into DBR. But I don't think that warrants calling him a coward. You can make the point without resorting to insults.

My last point: you're totally distorting the issue that I brought up at the beginning of my original post. It is well within your right to harbor resentment for the Chronicle because of the report card incident. But to take that resentment out on someone who (1) took no part in the report card incident, because it was 20 years ago; and (2) hasn't bashed any Duke basketball players, isn't right. This is the point I was trying to originally make: parallels can be drawn between Duke basketball players and Chronicle staffers because they are: (1) young and inexperienced; (2) here to entertain you, as well as get experience in their fields; and (3) hard working, well-meaning people.

[grc5]

For goodness sakes this is the dumbest arguement I've ever seen on DBR. I'll be back in September we have some basketball to talk about, because apparently everyone is too easily offended in the offseason.

Beaton's right or Beaton's wrong--who the heck cares. He's just one columnist at The Chronicle. As a former Chronicle sports columnist, please take my word when I say people usually quickly forget what you've written.

[bfree]

Oops, wrong thread.

[CDu]

Many, many, MANY members of this website don't have a Duke diploma.


Ah, so Greybeard, for instance, who went to Cornell, might be stupid because he doesn't have a "Duke diploma." Got it. And people wonder where that whole elitist rep comes from.


"The leadership?" Who is that? The moderators? There's no environment hostile to his view. If he's man enough to write what he did, he should be man enough to actually discuss it with the people he ripped.



I would be happy to write a point-counterpoint with the Beaton in the Chronicle. More than happy. Thrilled. Problem is, it's kind of hard to debate back and forth because the paper is published, you know, once a day. I'm just asking for a nice constructive debate in this thread. Beaton can say what he wants. Why hide?

This is some pretty poor logic, Jumbo. First, it is true that not everyone here has a Duke diploma. But what does that really matter to the validity of the poster's overall point? It's completely irrelevant. The point was that Beaton has a Duke degree, and thus is smart. Second, you make a fallacious jump to say that "if you don't have a Duke degree, you're dumb." The poster implied "if you have a Duke degree, you're smart." A implies B. The negative of A does not, however, imply the negative of B. Nowhere did the poster say "if you didn't go to Duke, you're dumb." The poster didn't even imply it. You should know that (and I'm sure you actually do know that).

FYI - this has nothing to do with the overall issue. But if you're going to disagree with the poster's argument that it is easy to debate in your own backyard (I may or may not agree with your stance on that regard), at least do it with strong logic.

[Jumbo]

Your first count of cowardice is a bit unreasonable, in my opinion. Maybe he's in class? Maybe he's otherwise occupied? Whatever the case may be, it's harsh to call him a coward for not immediately taking up this debate. Maybe he'll get around to it later.

Totally fair points. I agree.



My last point: you're totally distorting the issue that I brought up at the beginning of my original post. It is well within your right to harbor resentment for the Chronicle because of the report card incident. But to take that resentment out on someone who (1) took no part in the report card incident, because it was 20 years ago; and (2) hasn't bashed any Duke basketball players, isn't right. This is the point I was trying to originally make: parallels can be drawn between Duke basketball players and Chronicle staffers because they are: (1) young and inexperienced; (2) here to entertain you, as well as get experience in their fields; and (3) hard working, well-meaning people.

You mis-read what I wrote. I have no resentment toward the Chronicle for the "report card" incident. I think it was one of K's worst moments.

[dyedwab]

and there is ample precedent for such debate in world where opinions are significantly more contentious and people are less willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt....politics

Over the past few years, The New Republic (general considered a flagship liberal publication) and The National Review (the same on the conservative side) have had occasion to cross post debates on various topics and writers for both publication responded to each other

If TNR and NR can do it, certainly the Chronicle and DBR can....Lions lying down with the lambs and all that....

[Jumbo]

Guys,
This thread didn't go close to how I intended. And that's my fault. I'm going to lock it, post a standing invitation for Beaton to participate in a far-more-friendly debate, and then lock that. If Beaton wants to participate, he can PM me. If he doesn't, no harm, no foul.

Thanks for the various points expressed here.