As one of the posters who has expressed an opinion that I am sure many view as negative, let me say here and now, that I am entitled to that opinion. Yes, I wrote that the Front Office stopped short of doing all that they said they would do. Yes, I wrote that they took ques from the head coach that, (he would rather wait and see how things went before they went after anyone else). They have for years, been content to go on the cheap, or to act too slowly to achieve a really positive outcome, or to stop just short of doing what is needed. This is precisely the reason that the owners placed a floor to the salary cap. For years now, the more successful owners have been forced to share their earnings with those not so successful, while the latter group, (of which the Cardinals are a recipient), continue to hoard prospective salary money away. This is exactly what has always caused this franchise to be on the outside looking in, (or in the cellar, looking up).
If you are going to fault me for that, then how do you stand when I posted that I would like to be the first to congratulate the same front office for the great work that they did in signing 51 players in a 5 day period. It seems to me that both of my opinions of the front office were correct, and both were appropriate at the time. Am I not entitled to my opinion? Or is it just that if my opinion reflects badly on the organization, that I must keep it to myself?
I have posted nearly 2000 time on this board, and while they were not all positive posts, the majority were certainly not negative. I have expressed my opinions, (positive and negative), based upon factual incidences whether positive or negative, and had always strived to include argument to justify my position on the matter posted about. I am not just a post-padder who is content to simply add a +1, or a thumbs up, to a previous post in order to get my count up.
I feel like I am being singled out by one of the moderators, (along with Mitch), and I will state unaquivically that I don't like it in the least. Mitch can, (and I am sure will), speak for himself. This is not moderation, this is censorship, (or at least an attempt at it). It is quite one thing to enforce one of the written rules of this forum, such as the use of certain words which are forbidden. It is an entirely different matter to threaten a poster, because his or her opinion differs from the majority of the board.
Chris Sanders is wrong in this matter, moderator or not. Many things can be moderated, but how one FEELS about a topic is not something that can be treated by moderating it out of existence. That is an out and out violation of my first amendment rights, and I will not just idly sit by and allow that to happen.
Chris, I understand that you have a job to do, and that it is an important one. But you have overstepped your bounds, and wandered into an area that you have no legal basis to tread in. I have NEVER written anything here on this board that I did not believe to be factual. I have ALWAYS tried to justify any position that I have stated with information that, (in my opinion), backed up my argument. That is what a forum is intended for. To be able to discuss opinions both pro and con. When that process is threatened, then this is no longer a forum, but simply a place in which to express the organization's opinion only. Catfish
