BearsFansOnline.com

IE wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:59 am I still don't think the playground pecking order has been fully established. How do we know whose non-professional opinions are better? Or who is liked better? These are important things.

I guess I'll go with the person I agree with on each topic - you know, the smart one.

Let’s try to avoid stirring shit up for the sake of stirring shit up, shall we?

IE wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:59 am I still don't think the playground pecking order has been fully established. How do we know whose non-professional opinions are better? Or who is liked better? These are important things.

I guess I'll go with the person I agree with on each topic - you know, the smart one.

My advice:

Continue to post what you think.

If it is stupid, the board will continue to let you know.

G08 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 pm

IE wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:59 am I still don't think the playground pecking order has been fully established. How do we know whose non-professional opinions are better? Or who is liked better? These are important things.

I guess I'll go with the person I agree with on each topic - you know, the smart one.

My advice:

Continue to post what you think.

If it is stupid, the board will continue to let you know.

That was supposed to be comedy, FYI.

But what is that response? Some kind of a bully bible thing? The concept that you're stupid if you don't agree with some ostensible majority on the board... is itself stupid and illogical. Larger numbers of wrong people don't make something right. Or the loudest/most repetitive often aren't right, in their role of self-nominated arbiters of reality or what is acceptable to discuss. That makes the board dumber and less hospitable.

IE wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:08 am

G08 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:26 pm

My advice:

Continue to post what you think.

If it is stupid, the board will continue to let you know.

That was supposed to be comedy, FYI.

But what is that response? Some kind of a bully bible thing? The concept that you're stupid if you don't agree with some ostensible majority on the board... is itself stupid and illogical. Larger numbers of wrong people don't make something right. Or the loudest/most repetitive often aren't right, in their role of self-nominated arbiters of reality or what is acceptable to discuss. That makes the board dumber and less hospitable.

Mine was common sense

Let's hash this out because I'm growing tired of reading the same conversation about these issues. This is about as bluntly as I can put it:

I am not sure how criticism is considered bullying, unless you are that self-righteous or feel you are above reproach.

An example: pointing to an apple and declaring it is an orange isn't considered stupid because it deviates from some "majority on the board". It is wrong, painstakingly wrong.

Mind you, this is applies to everyone who freely shares their thoughts on a message board. Some people will agree, others will disagree. But if you say things like "Jesper Horsted is better than Greg Olsen early in his career", or that "Akiem Hicks is 5% better than Nick Williams", you're you're going to get roasted. Not because it is bullying, but because (excuse my bluntness here) it is preposterously stupid.

Members not calling these posts out is what will make this board dumber; not some "self-nominated arbiters" you are fictitiously creating to protect your feelings. Based on recent exchanges you've had, it appears vague and passive-aggressive posts will only add to the ire you draw from other posters, but I digress.

I used the term (bullying) to describe the responses that were intended to squash conversation rather than either contribute or move on without comment. I think self righteous might be an appropriate term - but I'd apply it to the folks who need to make sure others aren't talking about things that don't pass their purity tests.

Perhaps there should be a "purity / sacred cows" list pinned, so people know what to think and also what human land mines to avoid. It would help people to know that it is perfectly fine for example to believe that Mitch Trubisky is the next Drew Brees - but heaven forbid anyone suggest the marginal utility of Hicks might be small enough to make changes to help the team. A list would really help.

IE wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:54 am I used the term (bullying) to describe the responses that were intended to squash conversation rather than either contribute or move on without comment. I think self righteous might be an appropriate term - but I'd apply it to the folks who need to make sure others aren't talking about things that don't pass their purity tests. Perhaps there should be a "purity / sacred cows" list pinned, so people know what to think and also what human land mines to avoid. It would help people to know that it is perfectly fine to believe that Mitch Trubisky is the next Drew Brees - but heaven forbid anyone suggest the marginal utility of Hicks might be small enough to make changes to help the team. Oh my!

Forget the "purity / sacred cows" list; maybe you can die for the sins of the unpure since you already pinned yourself up on that cross

UOK edit: Nope.

I'm just going to disengage. It's all good.

IE wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:26 am I'm just going to disengage. It's all good.

I feel there's been a lot of ludicrous posturing lately.

Everybody just needs to disengage a little bit.

UOK wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:40 am
I feel there's been a lot of ludicrous posturing lately.

Wait are we fighting, dont disengage. Aggression violence of action forward march.... BATTLE.

Slingshot engaged.

Shake n bake

mmmc_35 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:53 pmShake n bake

UOK wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:40 am

IE wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:26 am I'm just going to disengage. It's all good.

I feel there's been a lot of ludicrous posturing lately.

Everybody just needs to disengage a little bit.

Just so much frustration on the board right now. The QB position is completely up in the air, and there is no faith that this franchise will get it right. We don't have a ton of cap space, and there is no 1st round pick for Pace to fuck up again. We're sort of mired in a bunch of shit, and inevitably, it will come out in our interactions with each other. Let's all take a deep breath and remember game day chat memes, and the fact that G08 gets grumpy with us in our irreverence to the beloved.

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:04 am

UOK wrote: ↑Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:40 am

I feel there's been a lot of ludicrous posturing lately.

Everybody just needs to disengage a little bit.

Just so much frustration on the board right now. The QB position is completely up in the air, and there is no faith that this franchise will get it right. We don't have a ton of cap space, and there is no 1st round pick for Pace to fuck up again. We're sort of mired in a bunch of shit, and inevitably, it will come out in our interactions with each other. Let's all take a deep breath and remember game day chat memes, and the fact that G08 gets grumpy with us in our irreverence to the beloved.

A lot of the frustration has been caused by Ryan Pace, a guy who I have pretty well supported. We have clearly improved and developed a very good defense in his tenure. But it's his failure with R1 picks and aggressiveness resulting in traded away draft picks that is tough to swallow in a time when we're cap strapped. Pace has compensated for failing in R1 with FA signings though. Kevin White bad... Alan Robinson good. Leonard Floyd bad... Robert Quinn... good (presumably). And of course, in his entire time here, he has yet to get the QB right, which is particularly maddening to Chicago Bear fans.

I will say though that when you significantly improve your team over several years, it's the natural order of things to move from flush with cap room to not so much. Trading for a dynamic game changer like Kahlil Mack was a bold move that also had dramatic cap consequences. The problem is that it's much easier to live with being cap dry after you win the big one. See the Chicago Blackhawks.

Just rambling.......