John A's comments on Heather | Page 2 | The Boneyard

John A's comments on Heather

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?
 
Ignorant simply means do not know, as in, ignorant of the facts. Saying someone is ignorant of the game is simply saying they do not understand the facts affecting the play. I don't know how you use the term.
 
Icebear said:
Ignorant simply means do not know, as in, ignorant of the facts. Saying someone is ignorant of the game is simply saying they do not understand the facts affecting the play. I don't know how you use the term.
Expand ...
In my humble opinion, you use terms like FACTS and TRUTH very loosely. I don't agree with your use of these terms.

It takes a wise person to understand the difference between FACTS and OPINIONS.
 
Icebear said:
The board not being negative doesn't mean that Heather hasn't taken a lot of unwarranted flack.
Expand ...

Does imply though, that the board has not been negative towards Heather. (which was the point the OP was making I believe).

I think most of the flack she has taken, has been warranted. However, I don't think she has taken a lot of flack.
 
Heather has finally come out of her shell and everybody should be ecstatic. She could be Geno's missing piece he did not have last season even with the great MM...Heather will wear the others teams post players out with her motion and speed. I am not sure who got her to take this leap, but we can not be more proud of her.......Go Heather!!
 
You are correct, Alum, I sometimes am given to a colloquial use of the phrase, "Fact is." I, often, go back and clean up that phrase in posts when it is inappropriate. There is substantial difference between facts and truth as well. facts are static and fixed, truth is interpretive of the facts.
 
.-.
Aluminny69 said:
I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?
Expand ...

I think the moderators act completely in accordance with the Boneyard Rules, which are very clear on this subject.... it's Rule #1 and very easy to find. Maybe some who are debating this subject should read that rule, so they are clear about the subject of negative posts about players.

And if you are implying that there have been no negative posts about Heather, you are dead wrong. Specific examples have been cited.
 
meyers7 said:
Does imply though, that the board has not been negative towards Heather. (which was the point the OP was making I believe).

I think most of the flack she has taken, has been warranted. However, I don't think she has taken a lot of flack.
Expand ...
And that is simply an issue of valuation and agreeable disagreement.
 
Icebear said:
Mike! the best example is the kind of folks who whine about Kelly's scoring some nights and completely ignore the all the other ways I which she may have helped dominate the play.
Expand ...

Yeah, so?

I disagree with their statements (and have said so), but aren't those debates part of what a fan board is about? And I think Kelly's play has disproved those comments.

But fact is, Geno had said he thought Heather could be great. And for much of last season, many on the BY were saying that Buck would be a significant contributor on the floor by March. Neither has panned out. The jury is still out, legitimately so, on this season.
 
Are we done with this conversation/post yet? I think we should be :D
 
A good argument on the pros and cons of a team and its players performance is always fun, appropriate and should happen regularly especially on a sports MB, only being a self admiration club for the UCONN Huskies can get mighty boring. It is good to spice things up now and again regardless of how anyone or a group feels about it. Opinion about this sort of thing generally gets in the way of somebodies righteousness but hey thats life. Me I like to feel Heather is becoming a more useful member of the team when it comes to game day, but thats jmo.
 
speedoo said:
I think the moderators act completely in accordance with the Boneyard Rules, which are very clear on this subject.... it's Rule #1 and very easy to find. Maybe some who are debating this subject should read that rule, so they are clear about the subject of negative posts about players.

And if you are implying that there have been no negative posts about Heather, you are dead wrong. Specific examples have been cited.
Expand ...

The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."

Can you show me the part that prohibits "negative" comments? If the mods, ignorant though they may be (in a non insulting way of course) , choose to allow a post to remain on the board it must not violate board rules.
 
.-.
Aluminny69 said:
I thought that the board Moderators didn't allow negative posts about the players?
Expand ...
We don't allow trashing. Criticism and negative posts aren't trashing.

Yes, there was a "waste of a scholarship" post comment regarding Heather. The post was spotted and trimmed of the offensive sentence without altering the gist of the Boneyarder's post. "She's a waste of a scholarship", btw, is a good example of trashing a player.

Sometimes the problem with a post isn't so much that it contains criticism as the way it is the post is phrased. "She was always out of position that game so she was late on defense. That's why she got the dumb fouls" is different from "She's lousy at defense. I don't know why Geno plays her". I'm not saying that people have to post a certain way, just explaining why others might be annoyed with a post that's critical of a player.

It's funny, though. Some posters that don't want others to have harsh words for the players have no problem insulting their fellow posters.
 
Icebear said:
However, anyone who reads the board regularly should have been well aware of them as pinot and speedoo were. John A.'s comments were likely simple observations of many of those same types of posts.
Expand ...
oh really? how long ago were those posts? i asked you to provide proof and you didn't link anything. were the posts on the old board? i don't EVER recall seeing anyone post that she was a waste of a scholarship or that she didn't belong in a UCONN uniform. in fact, posts like that would be deleted by the mods as incredibly inappropriate. so again, where is the proof? years ago? come on ice, you are better than that. and to allude that "anyone who reads the board regularly should have been well aware" is a cheap shot.
 
HuskyNan said:
We don't allow trashing. Criticism and negative posts aren't trashing.

Yes, there was a "waste of a scholarship" post comment regarding Heather. The post was spotted and trimmed of the offensive sentence without altering the gist of the Boneyarder's post. "She's a waste of a scholarship", btw, is a good example of trashing a player.

Sometimes the problem with a post isn't so much that it contains criticism as the way it is the post is phrased. "She was always out of position that game so she was late on defense. That's why she got the dumb fouls" is different from "She's lousy at defense. I don't know why Geno plays her". I'm not saying that people have to post a certain way, just explaining why others might be annoyed with a post that's critical of a player.

It's funny, though. Some posters that don't want others to have harsh words for the players have no problem insulting their fellow posters.
Expand ...

Yeah! for Nan. This whole thread is just the quarterly edition of the same old debate. The "ignorant" comment probably added a little extra fuel.
 
btw the OP quoted john as saying "Heather has taken a lot of junk from message boards during her career" and ice followed up with "Yes, the negatives are unwarranted".

if you are referring to one single post that said Heather should not "waste" a scholarship by coming back for her 5th year (which was subsequently edited/deleted by the mods) then i'd agree. but you referred to negatives in the plural. as if fans across the board summarily trashed Heather in a way that was not appropriate. that is totally and completely untrue. if that's not what you meant then perhaps you should have clarified. but you didn't.

just because i never read that post, as it was deleted, does not mean i "should have been aware of it". point is i've never read a post trashing heather as a person or as a player who was a waste of a scholarship or who did not belong on the team.

the fact that she generally has not played well or contributed significantly on a consistent basis prior to the last several games this year is in no way an unwarranted or over the top criticism. it's something that even Geno has said. it may be splitting hairs, but my original issue with your comments was that you were agreeing with the OP that the criticisms OVER HER CAREER have been unwarranted - which basically means personal attacks or trashing. and that is simply not true.
 
vtcwbuff said:
The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."

Can you show me the part that prohibits "negative" comments? If the mods, ignorant though they may be (in a non insulting way of course) , choose to allow a post to remain on the board it must not violate board rules.
Expand ...
I don't know where you got that quote, but it is not the BY rule I was referring to. Nan is now commenting on the rule I was referring to which is here:

http://huskynan.com/boneyardrules

Second, you seem to have misread my post. I never said the rule prohibits negative comments, and if you read the rule that applies, you will see what I'm talking about.
 
Oh boy, looks like this is gonna be a looonnnnng week on the BY :)
 
.-.
vtcwbuff said:
The applicable BY rule -
"You agree to not use this service to post any material which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violates any laws."
Expand ...


speedoo said:
I don't know where you got that quote, but it is not the BY rule I was referring to. Nan is now commenting on the rule I was referring to which is here:

http://huskynan.com/boneyardrules

Second, you seem to have misread my post. I never said the rule prohibits negative comments, and if you read the rule that applies, you will see what I'm talking about.
Expand ...
Pretty sure he's quoting the Scout terms of service.
 
How about we call a truce? I think it is exciting to think about Heather finally coming into her own, no matter what anyone may or may not have said online here!!!:)
 
ericsandiego said:
oh really? how long ago were those posts? i asked you to provide proof and you didn't link anything. were the posts on the old board? i don't EVER recall seeing anyone post that she was a waste of a scholarship or that she didn't belong in a UCONN uniform. in fact, posts like that would be deleted by the mods as incredibly inappropriate. so again, where is the proof? years ago? come on ice, you are better than that. and to allude that "anyone who reads the board regularly should have been well aware" is a cheap shot.
Expand ...
eric, I gave you the example of the "waste of a scholarship" thread. Nan, noted its existence, too, and mentioned an edit but it was up in its original form for awhile. Actually, I went looking for the thread and I couldn't find it. The OP may have requested it be taken down. Someone did make that request of a thread recently, it might have been that one. Sorry that you don't remember it.

The thread in question had several responses noting that Heather returning would not cost any recruit a scholarship because UConn would only have 13 scholarships in play next year and 15 is the maximum allowed.
 
Icebear said:
eric, I gave you the example of the "waste of a scholarship" thread.
Expand ...
ice, i said it before and i'll say it again. you said "THE NEGATIVES WERE UNWARRANTED" in response to "Heather has taken a lot of junk from message boards over the course of her career". BOTH comments directly said that there were at least several (ie. more than one) and implied that it was pervasive and widely spread across the board. if you simply are referring to one example that was subsequently deleted by the mods then you are wrong. i'm willing to let this go but please stop defending your comment, unless you really believe it's true. then i will continue to call you out as being 100% wrong.

This board does NOT have ANY kind of history of trashing, demeaning, or bashing Heather in an overly critical way. never happened, never will. there has NEVER been a groundswell of support for ANY kind of comment calling her a waste of a scholarship. to imply that this board has ever gone there is simply untrue and wrong to point the finger and try to paint the entire board over 1 comment that was apparently deleted.

i'd still like you to explain all the negatives on this board OVER THE COURSE OF HER CAREER regarding heather that were unwarranted. since you are unable to do so i'll simply assume you know you are incorrect but are unwilling to say so on the board. let's just move on.
 
.-.
ericsandiego said:
ice, i said it before and i'll say it again. you said "THE NEGATIVES WERE UNWARRANTED" in response to "Heather has taken a lot of junk from message boards over the course of her career". BOTH comments directly said that there were at least several (ie. more than one) and implied that it was pervasive and widely spread across the board. if you simply are referring to one example that was subsequently deleted by the mods then you are wrong. i'm willing to let this go but please stop defending your comment, unless you really believe it's true. then i will continue to call you out as being 100% wrong.

This board does NOT have ANY kind of history of trashing, demeaning, or bashing Heather in an overly critical way. never happened, never will. there has NEVER been a groundswell of support for ANY kind of comment calling her a waste of a scholarship. to imply that this board has ever gone there is simply untrue and wrong to point the finger and try to paint the entire board over 1 comment that was apparently deleted.
Expand ...
Yes, I said they were unwarranted and I still think they were. I never said they were your comments. Sorry that you don't agree but that it fine with me.
 
Icebear said:
Yes, I said they were unwarranted and still still think they were. I never said they were your comments. Sorry that you don't agree but that it fine with me.
Expand ...
again ice you completely are missing the point and not answering the question. WHERE ARE THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS OVER THE COURSE OF HER CAREER that you keep referring to? one thread that was subsequently deleted is not a history of junk over the course of her career. i'm sorry that you can't see it.
 
ericsandiego said:
again ice you completely are missing the point and not answering the question. WHERE ARE THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS OVER THE COURSE OF HER CAREER that you keep referring to? one thread that was subsequently deleted is not a history of junk over the course of her career. i'm sorry that you can't see it.
Expand ...
I can name you the exact posters but that serves no purpose. There are three, maybe who regularly slam her. You are acting like I am the only one who has noticed it I am not.
 
It appears to me that Eric and Ice have a difference of opinion on what is negative. And whether or not those comments are "junk".
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,160
Messages
4,555,228
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom