Quote:
Originally Posted by
osarusan
On the issue of your analogy about archaeology, you created this analogy after reading Nesta99 talk about the use of the word 'excuse'. You assumed that he had been asking people to justify their non-attendance, but it turns out that he hadn't. (He clarified in post 887 that there was no interrogation, but you still told him he was missing the point). So your analogy has fans of a particular activity badgering others who have no interest in that activity as to why they don't participate in that activity. You may not have explicitly accused Nesta99 of badgering people, but it is clear from your post that you imply there are some LOI fans out there badgering people over their non-attendance. Why make it part of the analogy regarding an 'unhelpful attitude' otherwise? You assumed all this from the word 'excuse', and even when the context was made clear to you, you still insist the analogy is valid. But it isn't.
I hadn't necessarily assumed that he'd been asking or badgering people to justify their non-attendance. I didn't accuse anyone of badgering anyone. I simply (mis)perceived his use of the word "excuse" to imply that he had an expectation upon others and that if they were ever explaining their non-attendance, he saw them as excusing themselves from what he, perhaps inadvertently, viewed as an obligation. Both myself and Nesta since came to an accord; I had misunderstood his use of the word "excuse". It was actually the case that non-attenders were volunteering reasons unprompted, as if offering excuses tinged by their own non-imposed feelings of guilt. He did not expect them to be excusing themselves from some obligation he imposed upon them.
Quote:
So, in post 922, you are still going on about 'the present degree of polarised entrenchment'. Could you let me know what that degree is. Just how prevalent are these fans with the mindset of assuming non-LOI fans are imbeciles, are deluded (I saw no delusion in MarinoBohs post - could you point it out please), and badger non-LOI fans?
Are you actually denying that there's a severe polarisation between LOI supporter and barstooler in Ireland? The degree of mutual contempt or disdain is significant. That is to say the feelings are not unilateral. You can't seriously play that down? Isn't that the big issue?
Quote:
You ask me if these attitudes do not exist, and are not harmful. In my opinion, these attitudes exist in such tiny numbers as to have no harmful effects. Again, the people being insulted, in the vast majority of cases, are those who have dismissed the league without rational reason. They are not 'potential partners'. And, to use an argument you're familiar with, anybody who would be insulted by these comments would have to be very precious indeed.
Well, well, well... Someone who might feel a bit intimidated by an expressed intent to "bludgeon them to death with the nearest TV" would have to be "very precious indeed"? Really?! I guess they're lucky he who wants to bludgeon them to death can "resist the urge to kill"... Sure, marinobohs was most likely posturing (with the aid of some hyperbole), but don't try and compare the nature of this argument to the one we had about Paddy Barnes' harmless incident on the podium. Barnes is a good boxer and he knows who he is, but he has never expressed such vitriol as an intent to murder someone over the team with whom they affiliate. He didn't even set out to insult, or, at least, you, despite your suspicions, couldn't say with any certainty that he did. Anyhow, whether or not non-interested parties are being "very precious indeed" in relation to the matter at hand, the LOI has a serious national image problem. Such attitudes and their tolerance (or is it defending them in which you're now engaging?) doesn't help with that, yet most LOI fans would simultaneously claim they want to see more people flock to the league. Why can't these people who are being insulted be potential partners? Would you rather shun them?