Beyond the Beat for tonight | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.-.

Beyond the Beat for tonight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great job, DD and Digger! You two made excellent points and were more than fair in your questioning (Kudos to Kib for his question!)
Hope you do go on again. I believe you made the conversation flow better by pointing out that the WBB board is not any other BY board. Soothed the other side, so to speak. Did I mention what a distinguished looking pair you are? (Of course now I may recognize you in the hallways of the XL, so if a slightly older lady stops you to say hi - oh wait - that could be anyone of a great number of people...)You did us proud!! (And now for that glass of wine...)
 
AWESOME job! It was great to see you guys in the chairs. So THAT's what you look like!!! Always nice to know what you "anonymous" guys look like (LOL)

OK - Now on to anonymity, It would be a terrible idea for people's real information to appear on The Boneyard or any other message board for the same reason we have to be very careful on other social media sites. Identity theft and/or personal security. I can see where a sports writer or other public figure would be upset that some clown on a message board can call them names. But unfortunately that goes with the territory of being a public figure. Is it fair?- NO - but that is and always has been a cost of having your name on a byline or on a Lineup card or on a theatre marquee.

Loved the respectful way you asked the questions and made the comments - That was key and completely representative of the majority of the people posting here.
Funny that Jeff quoted horrible comments from other forums. It's important to make that distinction as the decorum on other UCONN boards is MUCH different than the women's forum. And also true of other Pro sports forums I frequent. It's incredibly nasty in fact.

The business with that article about race being a factor in attendance strikes a huge nerve with me to this day. If sportswriters want to criticize a coaching move or anything else happening "between the lines" then so be it. But they have no more a sense of what motivates fans to attend games than politicians have a sense of what the average tax payer is going through. In a sense they both live in out of touch "Insulated" communities. And if that "Sisters" remark did indeed come from a UCONN basketball staff member then they too are out of touch with reality and don't have any clue what makes fans decide to buy tickets or not. I wonder if the "Sisters" remark came from an "AD" or "Assistant AD". After all if you're an integral part of a decision to raise ticket prices and implement parking fees then you are the last one that will admit it that THOSE are the reasons for lower attendance. I can tell you from personal experience that 2004 is around the time my wife and stopped going to games. PURELY financial. I lost my job. The ticket prices were going up and parking fees were becoming a part of the expense. As well as the gas involved to get there and a night of having to buy supper out. All factors completely lost on UCONN Staff and sportswriters who paid participants in these games. From attendance to parking to food they don't have to pay like we do.
Good point you made about Stewie being the main star and attendance is still not back up. What does that tell you?

I got crucified on this board a couple of years ago when I questioned why the students don't attend games with the same regularity as those student bodies from years ago. Does someone in the Athletic dept. think that is Race related too? I'd like to see more discourse on the students because I freely admit that I can't relate to their situations and what makes them decide to attend.

Thanks for Harriet & Jeff & Mike & Joe for welcoming you guys to the show. It was well worth watching. I hope they have you back.
 
D + D, appreciate and enjoyed your commentary. DD, I did not realize that you had so much hair. :) Mike and Jeff, you guys were very good also. You allowed us to see your feelings regarding the folks whose thoughts can be shall I say harsh (or as you might say, they had the volume turned up too high). They are a small percentage here. There is much to learn and many fine folk to appreciate.
 
Last edited:
Icebear said:
What I have is Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff.
Expand ...

Couldn't find the show. BUT, I can certainly attest to what a fine scotch Gwen Ifill is...............ooops, maybe I'm thinkin of GLEN Ifill.............am not really a scotch drinker , though a lot of the peat moss courses thru my veins on my mom's side.
 
Doggy and Digger…what fine representatives you are and were for the BoneYard. Frankly, if the producers are at all interested in promoting an audience, they should make this a weekly show during in season. Thanks.

samp9633f4f01bed2711.jpg
 
Last edited:
.-.
Great job! Enjoyed it very much and you presented a wonderful representation of this "community." Thank you!
 
Blueballer said:
OK - Now on to anonymity, It would be a terrible idea for people's real information to appear on The Boneyard or any other message board for the same reason we have to be very careful on other social media sites. Identity theft and/or personal security. I can see where a sports writer or other public figure would be upset that some clown on a message board can call them names. But unfortunately that goes with the territory of being a public figure. Is it fair?- NO - but that is and always has been a cost of having your name on a byline or on a Lineup card or on a theatre marquee.
Expand ...
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
 
meyers7 said:
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
Expand ...
Totally agree Meyers. They were so sensitive about what is being said here. As I told them, there are morons everywhere and you can't take them seriously. Some of the name calling definitely was over the line and I'm proud that it was not on the womens board.

Heck, we treat each other sometimes worse than we treat them....lol

True, we did not anticipate that line of questioning to us about that name calling. I thought it was awesome that Jacobs can get to the boneyard on his phone.

Both Jacobs and DiMauro admitted they get ideas from this board. I think that is fantastic. We ARE being heard as the main voice of the fan.

As always, people are just people. Joe Zone was all prepared for his closing statement to be trashing the boneyard (that "over the hill" comment really bothered him) but after talking with us on and off the camera, he didn't think it was the right thing to do. I'm glad he didn't.

Jacobs and DiMauro were nice guys. Looks like they want us back again.

It was a really fun experience and I believe we accomplished what I was hoping we would. Coming off as pretty normal folks with a passion for Uconn. It was not the time for Doggydaddy to be there, calling them idiots and snipping at their legs. I know some are disappointed.
 
meyers7 said:
Real good point. We probably should have anticipated their viewpoint better. But so many boards are anonymous, didn't really cross my mind. But they certainly had a problem with it.

The thing that really stood out for me, we talked with them a little before and with Joe after, was their real concern/distaste/problem with what people say about them. I can certainly understand some of the things crossed the lines, (inferring pedophiles, death threats, etc.) and they should be upset about them. But they also seemed very upset about being called idiots, or hacks, or over-the-hill, etc. particularly by anonymous posters.

I've been call many names over the years. Heck even my Boneyard "nickname" is basically smart@ss. (kinda carry that one with pride :cool:) But I've tried not to concern myself too much with what some idiot, probably living in their mother's basement, on a message board says about me. I would assume if I made a good living at, and knew I was pretty good at, being a sports writer, sports TV guy, etc. I wouldn't put much value in some message board idiot's opinion. Particularly one who can't make a valid argument and just resorts to name calling. However, that does not necessarily seem the case with them??? Not sure why? That's one question I wouldn't mind asking if we ever get the chance again. Why does that seem to bother you so much???

We did mention to them, that you just have to ignore the idiots, even told them there were functions where they could put the people on ignore.

For me the old saying holds true..... Wolves do not concern themselves with the opinions of sheep. I like that one.
Expand ...

You bring up a good point. I wanted to say something along the lines of this but the timing was not right. Surprisingly to me, Mike was probably the least agitated, Joe the most, though I certainly understand the things he found upsetting. Until Joe felt comfortable with us I felt like we needed to choose our questions carefully. Now they all feel comfortable with us, which affords us greater latitude for the future. Do you concur, meyers and dd?
 
.-.
And now DD can return to his regularly scheduled programming of nipping at our legs....(Kidding!) Seriously, you guys were great! I think it went very well, and hope you will be invited back. But bring Meyers out front this time, okay?
 
diggerfoot said:
You bring up a good point. I wanted to say something along the lines of this but the timing was not right. Surprisingly to me, Mike was probably the least agitated, Joe the most, though I certainly understand the things he found upsetting. Until Joe felt comfortable with us I felt like we needed to choose our questions carefully. Now they all feel comfortable with us, which affords us greater latitude for the future. Do you concur, meyers and dd?
Expand ...
I agree, digger.
 
I have always enjoyed Joe Zone all the way back to his days in Wilkes Barre/Scanton. He did the local sports there and always treated high school coaches, athletes, schools really well.
 
I live in FFLD County and couldnt find it. Is it on YouTube? Can someone post a video.
 
Yeah, I'm in the Midwest and would love to see it.
 
A note to those not reading the thread Nan Lids started, The link to the location where the Beyond the Beat videos are stored is here:

Beyond the Beat

At this moment the newest show (#226) with our guys in it is not posted but it should be in the next few day. I'm sure once it's there people will alert us all.
 
.-.
DaddyChoc said:
nope... UConn football coach is currently on
Expand ...

Yes, that's the show that is currently featured on their website (#225). We might want to
keep an eye on the CPTV Sports schedule. Perhaps the next time it comes on (not in their
usual time slot) it will be #226.
 
Again, I can't wait to see it. Nan can you pin a post with the link when the video is available?

I'm glad it went well. Congrats to the Boneyard delegation. Although I wouldn't have said it beforehand, it is difficult to keep your head in the environment, with the lights and the pressure of being "on." I'm glad our guys (apparently) knocked it out of the park.
 
Being a WCBB nut and not spending time on the other boards at the BY means I don't have a real sense of what happens there, but I do notice a different tone in posts from infrequent visitors from football or MBB when they post here. I really appreciate our mods and most of our posters. And it hadn't occurred to me that the reaction to the BY might be more strongly biased by visits to the other sites, just because ... who would bother reading those boards! :cool:
I can't wait to see this show, and I suspect to a certain extent you and they were talking at cross purposes because you more closely represent this forum and their harsh reactions are probably more directed to the other forums. Doesn't mean that we don't have issues with some of the things they write, just that we probably react to them with more facts and figures and rational thought and fewer swear words and epithets.
It is interesting that they are as sensitive as you say - threats cross the line, but bad reactions from the folks they cover and their readers comes with the territory of publishing your thoughts. These guys have been around for a while, you would think they would be used to it. Yes the internet is anonymous and immediate and gives a public forum to those bad reactions, but they must have been called bums and worse face to face by irate fans, family of players, coaches, staff, administrators, and the general public. And as has been noted, most news personalities live on publicity and at least occasionally appear to write stories/give commentary specifically to draw strong reactions and create controversy - nothing like buzz to keep the paychecks flowing and your bosses happy.
 
You cut to the chase well. I will take it a step further for what I see. Ultimately, it is all about people and how people treat other people. For me, it is no more complicated than that.
 
Great job by both DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot. They represented the Boneyard extremely well -well spoken and well reasoned questions and comments.

It's a good thing DiMauro and Jacobs are print journalists - If I just tuned in and didn't know any of the participants I would have thought DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot were the media mavens.
 
CCinCT said:
Great job by both DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot. They represented the Boneyard extremely well -well spoken and well reasoned questions and comments.

It's a good thing DiMauro and Jacobs are print journalists - If I just tuned in and didn't know any of the participants I would have thought DoggyDaddy and Diggerfoot were the media mavens.
Expand ...
You are way too kind.

They just set the bar real low....lol.
 
.-.
Reading the comments on the show I, too, am intrigued by this question of anonymity and vesting in other people's reactions to what you write/post.

Following the shift in message boards and commenting has been an interesting journey. Many initially heralded anonymity and comments sections because they hoped it would provide honest and free dialogue. Only to discover that some participants weren't interested in that -- or, perhaps more importantly, struggled with being okay with NOT agreeing with another point. And then others who just take it to an ugly place. It's why USAToday eliminated comments on many of Christine Brennan's articles, because when she wrote about women athletes, the responses were so unattractive they 1) were awful to read and 2) seemed to form some sort of "referendum" on the interest in/validity of covering women's sports. I know another writer who regularly swears off message boards because she takes it too personally. I guess, to many degrees, most of us work anonymously. Outside of our rather insular work place, nobody knows what we do or how well we do it. That's the spotlight athletes (and artists) are in. And, because of this country's obsession with sports, that spotlight has expanded to include sportswriters. Where once they could publish something and get a phone call or letter to their editor, now folks have almost direct access to them.

One of the wisest comments I've heard from a writer is that he considers comments PART of his articles. Which means they have to be monitored. He also, if IRRC, has "senior" or "trusted" responders that support the content/tone.

I think, to a degree, we have the here at the 'yard. It doesn't mean we don't push each others' buttons, or that we don't get defensive or impatient. Nor does it mean every post survive the "would I say it to this person's face" test. There are times when I re-read something, and then reconsider. There are times when I'm just straight up snarky. I have learned that sometimes it's worth it to post your thoughts and then leave the thread alone... sometimes.

Seems to me the internet (as it relates to message boards and comments sections) was in it's infancy and is now moving into adolescence. Some of us are moving with it - some not so much. :-) Maybe our mood depends on the day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
4,459
Total visitors
4,675
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,483
Messages
4,440,244
Members
10,304
Latest member
MUFan in CT


Top Bottom