(01-21-2022 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If one of your Rugby players makes a bad pass, and you tell them so, do you think it's relevant for them to tell you that they're making less [sic] bad passes these days?

Absolutely. But more important is that I notice that they are making fewer bad passes (or maybe that their bad passes are less bad, in which case your wording would be correct). Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will we end racism in a day (if ever). But recognizing progress is much more useful in ending it than fomenting divisiveness by harping on the fact that it isn't perfect.

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If one of your Rugby players makes a bad pass, and you tell them so, do you think it's relevant for them to tell you that they're making less [sic] bad passes these days?

Absolutely. But more important is that I notice that they are making fewer bad passes (or maybe that their bad passes are less bad, in which case your wording would be correct). Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will we end racism in a day (if ever). But recognizing progress is much more useful in ending it than fomenting divisiveness by harping on the fact that it isn't perfect.

Well said.

As a former youth coach, I tried to give my players as much positive feedback as I could, while trying to help them do better.

Yeah, kind of irrelevant. Who cares how I coached peewee sports 45 years ago.

I personally think racism will never be eradicated on an individual level. We humans are creatures of perception and profiling,, and with billions of us on this Earth and more arriving daily, we can always find somebody somewhere who has attitudes towards somebody, somewhere.

What we can do is eradicate the role of government in maintaining a divisive and unequal rule of law. We have largely done that now. We abolished separate but equal and Jim Crow laws. What remains to be done in the realm of official oppression?

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Which of my comments on racism do you think incorrect? Let's talk.

Since nobody has taken me up on this, the inescapable conclusion is that everybody agrees with me.

I thought it was pretty clear - my comment wasn't that I disagreed with your perspective, I just have never found it relevant to the discussions.

You are focusing on my comparisons of then and now, but I have also made my opinions known on the "now", such as my discussions with 93 on perception.

Maybe I should wait and find a young black your age or college age who has been turned away from restaurants and colleges strictly on race. Where, oh where can I find this young person?

Oh, yeah, at Rice, wanting to move the statue. We could go have a cup of coffee, if only we could find a place that would let them in.

I think most of the grievances blacks have are perceptions, and most of the rest are actions from individuals, not government. In fact, I would wonder how any level of US government encapsulates racism against blacks in their laws and regulations. I am open to hearing about it, since I don't see it.

Any yet you admittedly have very few, if any, more-than-superficial interactions with black people. Don't you think that makes your conclusion somewhat iffy? You are relying on the media for your impressions of black people's experiences/grievances?

(01-21-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Which of my comments on racism do you think incorrect? Let's talk.

Since nobody has taken me up on this, the inescapable conclusion is that everybody agrees with me.

I thought it was pretty clear - my comment wasn't that I disagreed with your perspective, I just have never found it relevant to the discussions.

You are focusing on my comparisons of then and now, but I have also made my opinions known on the "now", such as my discussions with 93 on perception.

Maybe I should wait and find a young black your age or college age who has been turned away from restaurants and colleges strictly on race. Where, oh where can I find this young person?

Oh, yeah, at Rice, wanting to move the statue. We could go have a cup of coffee, if only we could find a place that would let them in.

I think most of the grievances blacks have are perceptions, and most of the rest are actions from individuals, not government. In fact, I would wonder how any level of US government encapsulates racism against blacks in their laws and regulations. I am open to hearing about it, since I don't see it.

Any yet you admittedly have very few, if any, more-than-superficial interactions with black people. Don't you think that makes your conclusion somewhat iffy? You are relying on the media for your impressions of black people's experiences/grievances?

No, I am relying on common sense and decades of experience with all kinds of people including minorities. More Hispanics than other minorities, but I have experience with all sorts of people - black, white, native American, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, all sorts, even one tranny. I have less interaction NOW with black people than before(in fact, I have less interaction with people of all sorts - hello, pandemic), but that does not mean I have none ever.

I see nothing in the media about DWB, either way, but as I have recounted to you before, I think the expectations color the perception of the experience of getting a ticket or walking into a restaurant or any of the myriad happening of daily life.

You, on the other hand, rely on personal anecdotes from people who may well have a misperception. By accepting their perception without using your common sense you perpetuate that perception. If I knew someone who felt they had been passed over for a job because of Affirmative Action, I would not take their opinion as gospel. Just because somebody thinks something happened does not mean it actually happened.

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If one of your Rugby players makes a bad pass, and you tell them so, do you think it's relevant for them to tell you that they're making less [sic] bad passes these days?

Absolutely. But more important is that I notice that they are making fewer bad passes (or maybe that their bad passes are less bad, in which case your wording would be correct). Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will we end racism in a day (if ever). But recognizing progress is much more useful in ending it than fomenting divisiveness by harping on the fact that it isn't perfect.

I highly doubt that if you player responded "but I've gotten better" you'd find that relevant in the conversation about whether they made a mistake right there, but I'll take your word for it...

I agree that recognizing progress has been made is valuable. But I find it a distraction and plainly irrelevant when discussing issues of the day. It'd be like debating whether or not PFAS should be more strictly regulated by the EPA or a state agency, and someone responding "I don't think it does. They regulate what lead can go in these days, and they used to not do that."

Side-bar: what is with you and adding [sic] onto quotes that you quote? It's rather odd, especially when the error is minor and it isn't necessary to point out. This is not the first time you've added [sic] to one of my posts you are quoting.

(01-21-2022 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since nobody has taken me up on this, the inescapable conclusion is that everybody agrees with me.

I thought it was pretty clear - my comment wasn't that I disagreed with your perspective, I just have never found it relevant to the discussions.

You are focusing on my comparisons of then and now, but I have also made my opinions known on the "now", such as my discussions with 93 on perception.

Maybe I should wait and find a young black your age or college age who has been turned away from restaurants and colleges strictly on race. Where, oh where can I find this young person?

Oh, yeah, at Rice, wanting to move the statue. We could go have a cup of coffee, if only we could find a place that would let them in.

I think most of the grievances blacks have are perceptions, and most of the rest are actions from individuals, not government. In fact, I would wonder how any level of US government encapsulates racism against blacks in their laws and regulations. I am open to hearing about it, since I don't see it.

Any yet you admittedly have very few, if any, more-than-superficial interactions with black people. Don't you think that makes your conclusion somewhat iffy? You are relying on the media for your impressions of black people's experiences/grievances?

No, I am relying on common sense and decades of experience with all kinds of people including minorities. More Hispanics than other minorities, but I have experience with all sorts of people - black, white, native American, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, all sorts, even one tranny. I have less interaction NOW with black people than before(in fact, I have less interaction with people of all sorts - hello, pandemic), but that does not mean I have none ever.

I see nothing in the media about DWB, either way, but as I have recounted to you before, I think the expectations color the perception of the experience of getting a ticket or walking into a restaurant or any of the myriad happening of daily life.

You, on the other hand, rely on personal anecdotes from people who may well have a misperception. By accepting their perception without using your common sense you perpetuate that perception. If I knew someone who felt they had been passed over for a job because of Affirmative Action, I would not take their opinion as gospel. Just because somebody thinks something happened does not mean it actually happened.

More condescension from you... thanks for that.

I didn't feel that it was necessary to spell it out, but I try to combine my personal experience with black people to whom I am close with common sense. I actually understand anecdotal evidence but thanks again.

I was under the impression that you rarely had any serious interaction with black people these days... I believe that you have stated so on this forum. That's why I thought that you perhaps don't have your finger on the pulse of current black peoples' experiences and grievances. We are, after all, discussing modern issues as it relates to racism in society.

[/quote]

I was under the impression that you rarely had any serious interaction with black people these days... I believe that you have stated so on this forum. That's why I thought that you perhaps don't have your finger on the pulse of current black peoples' experiences and grievances. We are, after all, discussing modern issues as it relates to racism in society.
[/quote]

This is race trolling.

(01-21-2022 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I highly doubt that if you player responded "but I've gotten better" you'd find that relevant in the conversation about whether they made a mistake right there, but I'll take your word for it...

Depends upon what your objective is. If the objective is to bring about long-term improvement, it is certainly relevant to make note of any improvement. If the objective is to piss everybody off and foment divisiveness, then it is certainly relevant to treat every single mistake as a catastrophic failure.

Reminds me of the national college sevens tournament when we were getting ready to play Cal and I noticed my scrum half writing something on her hands with a black permanent marker. I asked her what she was doing, and she said, "I'm marking my hands L for left and R for right, because sometimes in the heat of a game I forget which is which."

(01-21-2022 11:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I highly doubt that if you player responded "but I've gotten better" you'd find that relevant in the conversation about whether they made a mistake right there, but I'll take your word for it...

Depends upon what your objective is. If the objective is to bring about long-term improvement, it is certainly relevant to make note of any improvement. If the objective is to piss everybody off and foment divisiveness, then it is certainly relevant to treat every single mistake as a catastrophic failure.

Reminds me of the national college sevens tournament when we were getting ready to play Cal and I noticed my scrum half writing something on her hands with a black permanent marker. I asked her what she was doing, and she said, "I'm marking my hands L for left and R for right, because sometimes in the heat of a game I forget which is which."

What if the objective is to discuss if the pass you just observed was done incorrectly? You're coming up a bit short on what potential objectives exist.

I was under the impression that you rarely had any serious interaction with black people these days... I believe that you have stated so on this forum. That's why I thought that you perhaps don't have your finger on the pulse of current black peoples' experiences and grievances. We are, after all, discussing modern issues as it relates to racism in society.
[/quote]

This is race trolling.
[/quote]

Never heard that term.

Looked it up. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p...ce%20Troll

It seems that you are mistaken (again).

(01-20-2022 05:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I said "some of us" rather than "one of us" because I couldn't recall the poster although I was pretty sure that it was #'s. I can see why you thought it was plural.

I thought it was plural because you used the plural. I appreciate the correction again, but you still seem to be putting some of any miscommunication on 'me'. I would have said 'someone, perhaps numbers?'... or 'one of you'. You chose the plural, which implies (not me inferring, but you implying) that 'more than one out of 4-5' (which is a meaningful percentage) of us share this feeling.... that NONE of us actually seem to have.

The reason it matters is because being called a racist ranks up there to most of us as being a pedophile.

Quote:93, I suspect that at least half of the crap that you get from us is in large part related to the crap like this that Lad spews, in this case, on your behalf (perhaps even over your quiet objection). MAYBE you remember it the way you do because Lad made a comment like this one.

I don't think so. [/quote]

Well, since you're not the one giving you crap, you wouldn't really know. I know with certainty that in THIS instance, you are getting 'more' of a response from be because of Lad's decision (even after you started to step back from your comment) to DEFEND your comment, based on the comments of others... hence my 'double down' response. He's defending a comment that you are stepping back from, which keeps your comment (and not the 'correction') present.

Quote:Honestly, and I am probably biased here, but Ham I believe you are the one that generally starts the insults when it comes to your discussions with Lad.

Oh good, so now we've evolved to the 'he did it first' part of our collective childishness. I think Lad 'asks' for what he gets through the collective of his comments... because although I absolutely take issue with him, especially when he makes outlandish statements, I am far from alone. I did exactly the same thing to you here... and although you didn't exactly disavow your comment, you certainly have stepped back from any extreme expression of it. On the other hand, Lad chose to come in and essentially support your initial outlandish, INCREDIBLY insulting and incorrect interpretation that any of us believe racism doesn't exist anymore.

Quote:In any case I don't recall Lad ever implying that you guys are racist. Just like you asked for a link to my comment about "US is no longer racist" perhaps you could provide a link where Lad did that?

If its too big a burden for you, then its certainly too big a burden to me as well. Besides, calling someone a racist is VASTLY more severe of a charge than accusing someone of calling someone else a racist.

That said, I don't need a link... because while its a minor transgression, it is right here in this space.

If you said... Some of you are racists... and then when challenged, you respond... well, not actually racists but not nice guys... and Lad came in and said that your initial comment was okay based on some other interpretation of something someone had said (which is what he did here), then he has co-opted and picked up the torch that you were laying down... and can live with the repercussions of it. Had you done the same (doubled down on your initial assertion) I would have said similar about you... though at least in my mind, you don't have the same history of rhetoric towards 'the right' that Lad does. Rather than step back from your comment or allow you to... he simply took your place in 'attacking' the same group of people over the same comments. It's not the first time, I'm certain.... though I DO suspect that Lad is smart enough to have avoided making such an outright comment, but I am even more certain that he has strongly implied the same, and when challenged, did not step back from it, just as he hasn't done here.

(01-20-2022 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='Rice93' pid='18021605' dateline='1642716444']
I said "some of us" rather than "one of us" because I couldn't recall the poster although I was pretty sure that it was #'s.

Please provide source and link, or retract.

Quote:

(01-20-2022 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I believe the bolded is completely unfair to Lad.

I don't.

When a number of people on the receiving end of a comment interpret it the same way... and the only defense is coming from someone on the same side of that comment... it speaks to how one is perceived by those with whom he disagrees. In this specific case, perhaps you don't think Lad does this because you've never been on the receiving end of it.... and as he did to you, you tend to 'cut more slack' since you aren't being charged with an abhorrent offense. Just like the fact that I don't read lots of what numbers or Tanq post... unless it is quoted in a response that I take issue with because unlike you, Lad or even Good, they aren't often giving me a perspective that I can't already imagine or understand at least on some level. If you respond to them, I will certainly read what they wrote that you're responding to for context.... and I suspect you do similar. You probably miss a lot of the crap that he spews because it isn't directed at you... and any issues that are discussed, you similarly already understand his perspective and will interpret things the way you see them and not what he actually said... and you will do more of the opposite for me. You're right that there is bias involved, which is appropriate for this conversation... Because Lad generally agrees with your positions (and I with those of others from the right) we are more likely to overlook 'poor choices of words' like what you did here... and because we disagree with the others, we are more likely to find fault in the complaints about the 'poor choices of words'.

But there are certain things, like calling someone a racist... or even remotely implying that someone has racist attitudes... that like calling someone a pedophile that simply can't be 'brushed off' as a slip of the tongue, even if the reference is 'obtuse'. IMO, its actually WORSE if its 'obtuse', because that means you're aware of how bad it is... and yet you insist on doing it anyway. Like Bill Clinton's 'it depends on what the definition of 'is' is... you start playing semantics... but everyone knows what you really meant... which is why numbers sees this the same way I do. Whether he actually used the phrase or not, at least two of us (and I suspect at least one more if not three) would all say that they've interpreted his comments that way more than once.

I think he takes great pleasure in twisting and manipulating what others say to bring out the worst in it, often in ridiculous and unfathomable ways... and then as he did here, takes great offense when the phrase 'some of you' is interpreted to mean 'more than one of you'... which is how the term is defined... and that is perhaps 70% of what I get in to things with him over.

(01-21-2022 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if the objective is to discuss if the pass you just observed was done incorrectly? You're coming up a bit short on what potential objectives exist.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed as if you don't understand the tempo of a rugby game. Unless it was the last play of the half or a game, we're not going to have ANY discussion right away, because whoever made the pass needs to keep playing the game.

And no, I'm not coming up short on objectives, unless you can supply some additional ones. The only two possibilities I see are to work for continuous improvement or to foment division and hatred.

The scrummy who was marking her hands was also our kicker for a period of time. Problem was, she wasn't that great a kicker, and if she missed a kick then she would brood over it instead of staying in the present and playing the kind of rugby that we needed her to play. So we open one season playing UT-Dallas in Dallas. Just before the game, I ask her, "Are you ready to take our kicks today?" She says, "I guess I will, but I wish we had someone else, because I get so frustrated if I miss." So I ask do we have anyone who played soccer in HS. One of our prop forwards (not a position from which kickers typically come) says that she did, and could try to kick. So we set a ball on a tee and ask her to kick it. She hits the ball, well but misses badly because she did not aim properly. We correct her aim and she hits three in a row. Then I ask her how far she can kick it, and she hammers one into the middle of a soccer game on a nearby field, which pisses the soccer players off. I decide that she is our kicker, and in the pregame huddle I tell the team, "OK, Kiley is going to be our kicker today, and it's new for her, so when you score, try to score under the posts if you can, to give her easy kicks" (in rugby the conversion kick has to come from in line with where you scored, so if you score in the middle of the field the kick comes from the middle, if you score along the sideline, the kick must come from along the sideline). First three times, we score right in the middle and Kiley nails the kicks. Fourth time, our fly half scores right on the right sideline, and I yell to her, "Jackie, quit making things hard for Kiley." Kiley promptly steps back about 30 yards on the sideline to widen the angle, and again nails the kick. She, the referee, and I are the only ones standing there, as the remainder of the two teams have already gone back to line up for the next kickoff. Ref looks at me and asks, "How long has she been kicking?" I reply, "Oh, about 20 minutes." We end up winning the game 94-15, meaning that she made 12 out of 14 conversions for the day, and we had found our kicker for the next 2 years.

Besides her kicking ability, Kiley was an atypical forward in many ways. For one thing, she could run like the wind. Usually, if you see a forward break away with the ball, he/she is chased down and tackled very quickly by a back or two. If Kiley broke away, the opposing backs would chase after and she would simply run away from them.

(01-21-2022 11:22 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I thought it was pretty clear - my comment wasn't that I disagreed with your perspective, I just have never found it relevant to the discussions.

You are focusing on my comparisons of then and now, but I have also made my opinions known on the "now", such as my discussions with 93 on perception.

Maybe I should wait and find a young black your age or college age who has been turned away from restaurants and colleges strictly on race. Where, oh where can I find this young person?

Oh, yeah, at Rice, wanting to move the statue. We could go have a cup of coffee, if only we could find a place that would let them in.

I think most of the grievances blacks have are perceptions, and most of the rest are actions from individuals, not government. In fact, I would wonder how any level of US government encapsulates racism against blacks in their laws and regulations. I am open to hearing about it, since I don't see it.

Any yet you admittedly have very few, if any, more-than-superficial interactions with black people. Don't you think that makes your conclusion somewhat iffy? You are relying on the media for your impressions of black people's experiences/grievances?

No, I am relying on common sense and decades of experience with all kinds of people including minorities. More Hispanics than other minorities, but I have experience with all sorts of people - black, white, native American, hispanic, asian, gay, straight, all sorts, even one tranny. I have less interaction NOW with black people than before(in fact, I have less interaction with people of all sorts - hello, pandemic), but that does not mean I have none ever.

I see nothing in the media about DWB, either way, but as I have recounted to you before, I think the expectations color the perception of the experience of getting a ticket or walking into a restaurant or any of the myriad happening of daily life.

You, on the other hand, rely on personal anecdotes from people who may well have a misperception. By accepting their perception without using your common sense you perpetuate that perception. If I knew someone who felt they had been passed over for a job because of Affirmative Action, I would not take their opinion as gospel. Just because somebody thinks something happened does not mean it actually happened.

More condescension from you... thanks for that.

I didn't feel that it was necessary to spell it out, but I try to combine my personal experience with black people to whom I am close with common sense. I actually understand anecdotal evidence but thanks again.

I was under the impression that you rarely had any serious interaction with black people these days... I believe that you have stated so on this forum. That's why I thought that you perhaps don't have your finger on the pulse of current black peoples' experiences and grievances. We are, after all, discussing modern issues as it relates to racism in society.

Sorry you took it that way. I didn't mean it that way.

Let's take a real world example: if you or I see a police car by our vehicle, we don't worry much about being shot.

But that black student who wrote a letter about her parking dispute to the Thresher was. She said so. Why? Because she perceives the police in general and RUPD in particular as being racist against blacks and out to get them in various ways, including shooting them. Is that perception well founded? My common sense and decades of experience says no. My hispanic grandmother never warned me that cops were to get us. Maybe that is why one cousin became a cop and another joined the border Patrol. Maybe your personal experience with black people says, Yes, cops hate blacks and want to hurt them in any way they can. That's why they shoot so many without cause.

let's take another, not-real world example. Lat night I watched the latest episode on The Blacklist. In this one, a black girl begs her father not to join law enforcement (the FBI!) because that would make him a traitor to their people. Clearly, she saw blue as the enemy of black. Is that perception well founded? If course, well founded or not, if that is the prevailing attitude among black people toward joining law enforcement, no wonder departments all across the nation have trouble hiring black officers in numbers sufficient to be proportional to the general population. If course, any shortfall is laid at the feet of intradepartmental racism. Racism as always the answer. No other reason for anything will do.

Yes, I see less people these days, and that includes less blacks and other minorities. But it still includes some. I must confess, we don't sit around the table detailing how the cops (or my case, the IRS) is out to get us. But over the course of the 59 years since I left Rice, I have interacted with people of all kinds and been friends with people of all kinds. I can understand how a redneck from North Texas can see things differently than a Hispanic from South Texas, and both be wrong - or both be right. In any case, I can see both sides. Sounds to me like you are saying only one side is right, and that is your side.

(01-21-2022 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 05:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I said "some of us" rather than "one of us" because I couldn't recall the poster although I was pretty sure that it was #'s. I can see why you thought it was plural.

I thought it was plural because you used the plural. I appreciate the correction again, but you still seem to be putting some of any miscommunication on 'me'. I would have said 'someone, perhaps numbers?'... or 'one of you'. You chose the plural, which implies (not me inferring, but you implying) that 'more than one out of 4-5' (which is a meaningful percentage) of us share this feeling.... that NONE of us actually seem to have.

The reason it matters is because being called a racist ranks up there to most of us as being a pedophile.

Quote:93, I suspect that at least half of the crap that you get from us is in large part related to the crap like this that Lad spews, in this case, on your behalf (perhaps even over your quiet objection). MAYBE you remember it the way you do because Lad made a comment like this one.

I don't think so.

Well, since you're not the one giving you crap, you wouldn't really know. I know with certainty that in THIS instance, you are getting 'more' of a response from be because of Lad's decision (even after you started to step back from your comment) to DEFEND your comment, based on the comments of others... hence my 'double down' response. He's defending a comment that you are stepping back from, which keeps your comment (and not the 'correction') present.

Quote:Honestly, and I am probably biased here, but Ham I believe you are the one that generally starts the insults when it comes to your discussions with Lad.

Oh good, so now we've evolved to the 'he did it first' part of our collective childishness. I think Lad 'asks' for what he gets through the collective of his comments... because although I absolutely take issue with him, especially when he makes outlandish statements, I am far from alone. I did exactly the same thing to you here... and although you didn't exactly disavow your comment, you certainly have stepped back from any extreme expression of it. On the other hand, Lad chose to come in and essentially support your initial outlandish, INCREDIBLY insulting and incorrect interpretation that any of us believe racism doesn't exist anymore.

Quote:In any case I don't recall Lad ever implying that you guys are racist. Just like you asked for a link to my comment about "US is no longer racist" perhaps you could provide a link where Lad did that?

If its too big a burden for you, then its certainly too big a burden to me as well. Besides, calling someone a racist is VASTLY more severe of a charge than accusing someone of calling someone else a racist.

That said, I don't need a link... because while its a minor transgression, it is right here in this space.

If you said... Some of you are racists... and then when challenged, you respond... well, not actually racists but not nice guys... and Lad came in and said that your initial comment was okay based on some other interpretation of something someone had said (which is what he did here), then he has co-opted and picked up the torch that you were laying down... and can live with the repercussions of it. Had you done the same (doubled down on your initial assertion) I would have said similar about you... though at least in my mind, you don't have the same history of rhetoric towards 'the right' that Lad does. Rather than step back from your comment or allow you to... he simply took your place in 'attacking' the same group of people over the same comments. It's not the first time, I'm certain.... though I DO suspect that Lad is smart enough to have avoided making such an outright comment, but I am even more certain that he has strongly implied the same, and when challenged, did not step back from it, just as he hasn't done here.

(01-20-2022 07:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 05:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I said "some of us" rather than "one of us" because I couldn't recall the poster although I was pretty sure that it was #'s.

Please provide source and link, or retract.

Quote:

(01-20-2022 03:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I believe the bolded is completely unfair to Lad.

I don't.

When a number of people on the receiving end of a comment interpret it the same way... and the only defense is coming from someone on the same side of that comment... it speaks to how one is perceived by those with whom he disagrees. In this specific case, perhaps you don't think Lad does this because you've never been on the receiving end of it.... and as he did to you, you tend to 'cut more slack' since you aren't being charged with an abhorrent offense. Just like the fact that I don't read lots of what numbers or Tanq post... unless it is quoted in a response that I take issue with because unlike you, Lad or even Good, they aren't often giving me a perspective that I can't already imagine or understand at least on some level. If you respond to them, I will certainly read what they wrote that you're responding to for context.... and I suspect you do similar. You probably miss a lot of the crap that he spews because it isn't directed at you... and any issues that are discussed, you similarly already understand his perspective and will interpret things the way you see them and not what he actually said... and you will do more of the opposite for me. You're right that there is bias involved, which is appropriate for this conversation... Because Lad generally agrees with your positions (and I with those of others from the right) we are more likely to overlook 'poor choices of words' like what you did here... and because we disagree with the others, we are more likely to find fault in the complaints about the 'poor choices of words'.

But there are certain things, like calling someone a racist... or even remotely implying that someone has racist attitudes... that like calling someone a pedophile that simply can't be 'brushed off' as a slip of the tongue, even if the reference is 'obtuse'. IMO, its actually WORSE if its 'obtuse', because that means you're aware of how bad it is... and yet you insist on doing it anyway. Like Bill Clinton's 'it depends on what the definition of 'is' is... you start playing semantics... but everyone knows what you really meant... which is why numbers sees this the same way I do. Whether he actually used the phrase or not, at least two of us (and I suspect at least one more if not three) would all say that they've interpreted his comments that way more than once.

I think he takes great pleasure in twisting and manipulating what others say to bring out the worst in it, often in ridiculous and unfathomable ways... and then as he did here, takes great offense when the phrase 'some of you' is interpreted to mean 'more than one of you'... which is how the term is defined... and that is perhaps 70% of what I get in to things with him over.

At this point, you (and potentially #s) are just looking to be offended here.

It likely comes from the very real instances of generic liberals/progressives calling generic conservatives/republicans racist. So you take that perspective, transport it in here, and then assume I am doing the same.

I promise you, I am not. If I wanted to call someone a racist, I would do it. You've taken it the wrong way, and that is on you, and you alone.

You're completely off base about quite a bit here - I don't twist words or manipulate what others say, despite your consistent insistence that I do. This board does not owe to clear and concise conversations, and leads to many issues, especially when people (myself include) sometimes assume the worst about others intentions.

You can believe me or not, but it would be odd for me to actually respond to this if I truly thought you conservatives were racists ******** and I intentionally twisted people's words and had wet dreams about that ****.

(01-21-2022 12:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 11:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What if the objective is to discuss if the pass you just observed was done incorrectly? You're coming up a bit short on what potential objectives exist.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and proceed as if you don't understand the tempo of a rugby game. Unless it was the last play of the half or a game, we're not going to have ANY discussion right away, because whoever made the pass needs to keep playing the game.

And no, I'm not coming up short on objectives, unless you can supply some additional ones. The only two possibilities I see are to work for continuous improvement or to foment division and hatred.

The scrummy who was marking her hands was also our kicker for a period of time. Problem was, she wasn't that great a kicker, and if she missed a kick then she would brood over it instead of staying in the present and playing the kind of rugby that we needed her to play. So we open one season playing UT-Dallas in Dallas. Just before the game, I ask her, "Are you ready to take our kicks today?" She says, "I guess I will, but I wish we had someone else, because I get so frustrated if I miss." So I ask do we have anyone who played soccer in HS. One of our prop forwards (not a position from which kickers typically come) says that she did, and could try to kick. So we set a ball on a tee and ask her to kick it. She hits the ball, well but misses badly because she did not aim properly. We correct her aim and she hits three in a row. Then I ask her how far she can kick it, and she hammers one into the middle of a soccer game on a nearby field, which pisses the soccer players off. I decide that she is our kicker, and in the pregame huddle I tell the team, "OK, Kiley is going to be our kicker today, and it's new for her, so when you score, try to score under the posts if you can, to give her easy kicks" (in rugby the conversion kick has to come from in line with where you scored, so if you score in the middle of the field the kick comes from the middle, if you score along the sideline, the kick must come from along the sideline). First three times, we score right in the middle and Kiley nails the kicks. Fourth time, our fly half scores right on the right sideline, and I yell to her, "Jackie, quit making things hard for Kiley." Kiley promptly steps back about 30 yards on the sideline to widen the angle, and again nails the kick. She, the referee, and I are the only ones standing there, as the remainder of the two teams have already gone back to line up for the next kickoff. Ref looks at me and asks, "How long has she been kicking?" I reply, "Oh, about 20 minutes." We end up winning the game 94-15, meaning that she made 12 out of 14 conversions for the day, and we had found our kicker for the next 2 years.

In my mind, this hypothetical was happening in practice, when a coach would be giving active feedback.

(01-21-2022 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my mind, this hypothetical was happening in practice, when a coach would be giving active feedback.

Oh my gosh, there is a very simple rugby passing drill, lines, one of the first you learn, where you line up four abreast, about 5 yards apart, and run about 40 yards, passing the ball back and forth. Ideally, in 40 yards, the ball goes from one side to the other and back. We couldn't do it. Even after we got to the point of competing at the national level, we just couldn't do it. It's part of every team's pregame drills, but we just couldn't do it. I used to laugh and say that it was our way of making the opponent overconfident. They would run theirs to perfection, and we would be dropping the ball, throwing it forward, making bad passes, just looking like absolute crap. Then the game would start and we would clean it up and beat them 90-0.

And we really didn't have conversations in practice. The team would correct each other if that was needed or appropriate, but again it's such a continuous flow, that if you made a bad pass you needed to get on defense rather than think about it. So what I always tried to do was focus on continuous improvement. And we went from having 5 people show up for practice and losing to TexasU 80 or 100 to nothing, to beating the Whorns and going to the national sweet 16 every year, so it must have worked. Although the one thing I learned about coaching is that I'm a lot better coach when an All-American player turns up.

There are really only two things that I take any credit for teaching or instilling as a coach. One was defense. Nobody at our level had any cohesive defensive scheme, but I managed to take a game tape from a France-Argentina World Cup game where France totally dominated play but Argentina won 35-10 because they had absolutely incredible defensive execution, and tell my players to be Argentina, and they absorbed it and did. The other was quick ball from the breakdown. Usually, when the ball carrier is tackled you have a huge pileup of players (technically a ruck, but often incorrectly called a scrum, which is actually something slightly different). We were so small, and typically had very little depth, and I was concerned that against a TexasU or aTm or TT, we would just get the crap beaten out of us in pileups. So we adopted the triangle concept from Mike Friday, former coach of Kenya and now coach of USA Sevens, whom I consider to be the best rugby coach in the world. We attacked with a three-player scheme--ball-carrier (queen), rucker, and short runner (foopee, a Kenyan word that our team always enjoyed using). When one of our players got the ball, the closest player to her yelled, "I got ruck," and the next closest player yelled, "I got foopee," and they lined up behind her. When the ball-carrier was tackled, the rucker came in over the top and cleared out the area over the ball before the crowd arrived, and then foopee came in, took the ball and got it out of there in a hurry, getting to the next phase (play) started before the pile could form. On defense, we would commit no more than two players to the pile, form up in straight defensive lines, and attack the first pass out of the ruck. The first time we did this, against TexasU, the ball came out to their fly half who was used to having plenty of time to set up a play. Our fly half hit her as soon as she got the ball, and she simply threw the ball straight up in the air. It landed on the ground and both teams stood around staring at it. At that point, I realized that I had forgotten (or had not had time) to explain to our team that when that happens you pick the ball up and go score. At any rate, after losing regularly to the Whorns 80-0 or 100-0, the score that day at halftime was 7-0. We ended up losing 28-0 because we wore down, but from that point forward we believed we could play with TexasU, and the next time we played them we beat them and our improvement was off and running.

(01-21-2022 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-21-2022 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my mind, this hypothetical was happening in practice, when a coach would be giving active feedback.

Oh my gosh, there is a very simple rugby passing drill, one of the first you learn, where you line up four abreast, about 5 yards apart, and run about 40 yards, passing the ball back and forth. Ideally, in 40 yards, the ball goes from one side to the other and back. We couldn't do it. Even after we got to the point of competing at the national level, we just couldn't do it. It's part of every team's pregame drills, but we just couldn't do it. I used to laugh and say that it was our way of making the opponent overconfident. They would run theirs to perfection, and we would be dropping the ball, throwing it forward, making bad passes, just looking like absolute crap. Then the game would start and we would clean it up and beat them 90-0.

And we really didn't have conversations in practice. The team would correct each other if that was needed or appropriate, but again it's such a continuous flow, that if you made a bad pass you needed to get on defense rather than think about it. So what I always tried to do was focus on continuous improvement. And we went from having 5 people show up for practice and losing to TexasU 80 or 100 to nothing, to beating the Whorns and going to the national sweet 16 every year, so it must have worked. Although the one thing I learned about coaching is that I'm a lot better coach when an All-American player turns up.

You and DB, peas in a pod, lol.

My bottom line--Focus on the frankly amazing improvement to date, rather than *itching about every perceived slight, and in the end you will do more to continue to improve the situation.

(01-21-2022 12:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  At this point, you (and potentially #s) are just looking to be offended here.

It likely comes from the very real instances of generic liberals/progressives calling generic conservatives/republicans racist. So you take that perspective, transport it in here, and then assume I am doing the same.

I promise you, I am not. If I wanted to call someone a racist, I would do it. You've taken it the wrong way, and that is on you, and you alone.

You're completely off base about quite a bit here - I don't twist words or manipulate what others say, despite your consistent insistence that I do. This board does not owe to clear and concise conversations, and leads to many issues, especially when people (myself include) sometimes assume the worst about others intentions.

You can believe me or not, but it would be odd for me to actually respond to this if I truly thought you conservatives were racists ******** and I intentionally twisted people's words and had wet dreams about that ****.

While I appreciate the reasonable response here and will try and reciprocate... there have been so many times where you have claimed I believe something that is so completely counter to what I believe... and so disconnected from the words I used that you claim support your contention that I find much of the above hard to swallow.

Whether intentional or not, you DO twist others words... I point it out a lot... but so do others from time to time... so its not just me... You usually disagree that you've done it... but as you did here, it is usually because you say that 'what we said then and what we say now' are not the same... and not because you twisted what we originally said. I've quite literally gone line by line with you sometimes to point out how 'what I said then' and 'what I'm saying now' haven't changed... and defined words to demonstrate that 'what you claim I said' and 'what I actually said' are not the same thing... and yet you still insist that your interpretation was somehow reasonable.

And no, I don't think it would be that odd. See Good Owl's posts. Some people seem to thrive on drama or on living in extreme interpretations. Not everything he posts is off base, even if the tone and conclusions are. I don't think you're as 'left' as he is 'right', but PLENTY of people (especially on the Memphis forum) simply love being antagonistic, especially if they can remain anonymous.

I will say this... I think you're correct that I DO transport comments made generically about Republicans to this forum when remotely similar charges are levied. Your generation calls it 'being triggered'. I think you're simply smarter than the average pundit and do a better job of masking your comments.. which is why I so often say I don't question your intelligence, just the intelligence of your comment.... but I also note and would admonish you that I am quite certain that you do the same. If we use words that sound like something that some pundit said, you immediately assign their entire belief structure to us. You did it here, speaking of 'private schools' and immediately going to 'religion based' and then even more quickly to those who engage in some questionable teaching practices. This flies directly in the face though of you claiming we are 'looking to be offended'. You're admitting that we're regularly being offended, just not by you. Absolutely, when you're told that you're something as horrible as a racist every day, you get pretty sensitive to anything that SOUNDS like that... AND... just as on a podcast I recently listened to... those who are the best at adopting the preferred language of any group they are trying to diminish are the intelligent ones among those groups trying to diminish the other. The troglodytes from each side aren't smart enough to try and mask their condescension.... so they don't. Neither of us are that.

If a parent wants their child to have daily bible classes, who are you/who is the state to say they can't have them? Plenty of kids get drug to church every week, sometimes numerous times a week. If they're teaching kids that Mary rode a dinosaur to Jerusalem or that 2+2=fish, then they shouldn't be accredited. The state has an interest in that. What is the state's interest in protecting a child from the religion that their parents have chosen for them? Should busses not go to churches or public roads not go to them? For that matter, how is a school that requires art (like HSPVA) or one of these elite basketball academies that require basketball fundamentally any different from one that requires religion? Neither are 'requirements' of a typical high school graduate and are simply 'add-ons' to the required curriculum. If they fulfill the other requirements, why is one okay to receive funds and the other not?

A liberal, by definition would support your right to have a different opinion about religion and its place in education... so long as the state educational requirements were fulfilled. It would promote equal funding (not full funding, but equal funding) for as many different educational situations as were necessary to maximize each student's potential... from high schools with 5,000 students to a home schooler with one, so long as they fulfilled (and we could verify which is likely the bigger issue with home schools) the quality of the education.

So maybe you do something like you give a voucher for $3k to a home school student, $4,000 to a small school and $5,000 to schools larger than say 100 students which reserves money to fund someone to keep tabs on the curriculum? Just throwing out an un-vetted idea.

(01-21-2022 12:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In my mind, this hypothetical was happening in practice, when a coach would be giving active feedback.

Rugby, whether in games or practice, is not like American football, where you have discreet plays with play stoppages in between. So you don't have the same opportunities to offer instant criticism. And the only way to avoid bad passes totally is not to pass the ball, which pretty much kills your offense. So something like continuous improvement would be the optimum goal.