The latest oxymoron!

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by DWKB
If I didn't know better (well I really don't), I would interpret a plea of ignorance as really just an attempt to get by with laziness.

If you stay with the trial lawyer metaphor, NO successful trial lawyer would simply submit evidence and allow the jury to sift through it on their own. To do so would indicate laziness on the trial lawyer's part--that he hadn't really thought through the threads of his case to a "logical" conclusion.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by DWKB
I find it odd that someone as smart as yourself claims not to be able to understand a couple of studies where the most complicated stat is SLG% and that are less than 10 pages each. If I didn't know better (well I really don't), I would interpret a plea of ignorance as really just an attempt to get by with laziness.

Well you completely miss the point. You were the one who originally attacked another poster's argument. You did so by posting a bunch of links. You are far too prone to criticize what people say and then post links as your "evidence" why they are wrong. If it is important enough for you to argue with, then argue your point. Most people on a message board are lazy in reading and evaluating other people's arguments.

I'm assuming that your motive is to persuade people to your opinion. If so, then merely citing a bunch of links without argument isn't the most effective means. If your point is to merely show you know more because you can link a bunch of studies (without showing that you've really understood what they prove, well then.....

 

[Ryanwb]

Originally posted by schillingfan
Well you completely miss the point. You were the one who originally attacked another poster's argument. You did so by posting a bunch of links. You are far too prone to criticize what people say and then post links as your "evidence" why they are wrong. If it is important enough for you to argue with, then argue your point. Most people on a message board are lazy in reading and evaluating other people's arguments.

I'm assuming that your motive is to persuade people to your opinion. If so, then merely citing a bunch of links without argument isn't the most effective means. If your point is to merely show you know more because you can link a bunch of studies (without showing that you've really understood what they prove, well then.....

Very well said.

 

[unc84steve]

My goodness.

I'd like to clarify & amplify a few points:

1. Different people come to a discussion board for different reasons. Some reasons including wanting to cheer on the team, compare gossip notes, learn about baseball (rules, history, theories, stats, rituals), talk with friends, argue points, sharpen their writing skills, vent anger, etc. etc. etc.

Heck, I believe that Sigmund Freud was right in believing we aren't fully aware why we do the things we do. (Because of unconscious motives, mixed emotions--literally "intangibles" because you can't touch or see them ).

2. DWKB didn't introduce the "evidence" & "facts speak for themselves" metaphor, I did as a reasonable explanation for his posting style. Then he agreed with the basic idea behind the metaphor, but he didn't endorse the analogy itself. But schillingfan & moviegeek (john) turned it into a question of how good a lawyer DWKB was in presenting his case to the "jury."

A discussion about who was smart or lazy to work through the potential evidence about the evidence which leads to...

3. In the same post where DWKB is accused of just dumping links without explanation, he explained exactly what he was doing.

These, of course, aren't my studies so it isn't really a matter of me being "right" or "wrong" (nice try at a goad anyways). Take em or leave em. I don't care, but at least they have something behind them besides obtuse conjecture.

IMO it's ironic that Ryanwb's original "charge" (MY ANALOGY--sorry I can't help but stick with the darn thing)

No, you gave me links to another site with someone elses opinions

IMO, DWKB did reasonable things to avoid being goaded into a fight.

One last question for this jury? Is the jury composed of the opposing lawyers?

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by unc84steve
IMO it's ironic that Ryanwb's original "charge" (MY ANALOGY--sorry I can't help but stick with the darn thing)
IMO, DWKB did reasonable things to avoid being goaded into a fight.

Okay, I'll accept that. Believe it or not I wasn't really trying to attack DWKB, but to explain why he promotes more fights by his strategy of dumping links without discussion. Remember in an internet message board context, perception is reality and it's so easy to give misperceptions.

But the snippet you quoted does smack of arrogance. And maybe he's not "right" or "wrong" but he is accusing Ryan's comments of being "obtuse conjecture"

These, of course, aren't my studies so it isn't really a matter of me being "right" or "wrong" (nice try at a goad anyways). Take em or leave em. I don't care, but at least they have something behind them besides obtuse conjecture.

Steve, you enjoy going to links and reading them, in fact you are link compulsive in your own posts. For me, I don't want to be "handed" a link a told to go read it in lieu of discussion. I appreciate your thoughtful attempts to explain why you think someone else is wrong and that you link to a site as further evidence to back up your position. But saying something is wrong and then using a link as your argument/evidence combined cuts off discussion on the message board.

I don't know that I can exactly explain why just posting the links elicits a negative reaction. DWKB says it's not a "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, but maybe it's a "you're wrong here's the evidence". Steve remember my comments elsewhere about why people hate sabremetrics as an of the same kind of problem argument (obscure reference that only Steve will understand). I don't know if I can explain why in words, but it just has that same feel to me. Don't you think saying "you're wrong" and posting a bunch of links has an "I'm smart and you're not" connotation?

 

[DWKB]

[this post was pulled as it was decided that it would do more harm than good, the white flag is officially raised]

 

[unc84steve]

Hi, everyone, it's me again. "I'm from the government & I'm here to help."

I have a bright idea. Often we start a legitimate, interesting baseball thread--Matt Williams as a "cleanup hitter" being an oxymoron--then batting order issues, protection, etc., right? As this evolves old & new issues get stirred up about whether someone is being too insulting for a newbie, has been too insulting in the past even though this statement seems innocent, etc. (look at this post). Some note "this always happens" because we do tend to argue & discuss.

Pretty soon we're not discussing baseball, we're arguing how to argue (a philosophical topic) or who has been the bigger jerk in the past (an personal/legal case), etc. IMO, these are legitimate issues, but I'm an OCD thinker by nature, but many just want to talk about baseball, right?

Here's the idea that some will know isn't that original & I'll be happy to give credit if they think there's a copyright infringement. I think when we identify such an issue somebody starts a new "off topic" thread. Some examples from this would be:

1. (OT) Using links in thread discussions
2. (OT) Why are people so antagonistic? (see Smolder page 1 bottom)
3. (OT) Why do people come to this board?
4. (OT) Does DWKB need to be "right"? (ideally posted by DWKB)
5. (OT) UNC, Stop coming up w/suggestions!