Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Hans Sprungfeld, post: 3366323, member: 181"] By my Settings, I already do, and have for several years. With the coaching change in 2018, I went from Ignoring 30+ to fewer than a half dozen...and you were a survivor. It is now uncommon for me to see "Show Ignored Content" at the bottom of a screen page. Sometimes I get curious, especially after reading a Reply that lacks its antecedent, and even more so when the Reply suggests that the answered Comment was of a certain type. "Oh yeah, that's why I Ignore [so-and-so]" is a more common reaction than, "Hmm, that's not a bad post; perhaps I'll remove the Ignore." It's a smoother reading experience without the Ignores, so there's a legitimare motivation for me to limit them. Besides, a wide variety of opinions & expressions is generally healthy, and thus to be prefered in most matters. As I wrote earlier, you maintain a distinction by generally failing to disappoint my expectation that your posts will disappoint. I see clues that you're capable of better, but choose lesser. Your recent explanatory post about, essentially, blue-glassed homers was uncharacteristically thoughtful, but held yourself in a regard too high because of the general paucity of helpful contribution here to counterbalance the criticism. The perceived signal-to-noise ratio doesn't warrant the high perch you implicitly claim. To be fair, there's another issue in play. I see your handle and recall one of the most lovable dogs I ever knew. Everybody instantly loved my eventual brother-in-law's dog Buddy, who I described as a refugee from the back lot at Disney. Kids would point & say to their parents, "Look at that dog. Look at that dog." His inexhaustible passion & prowess at playing fetch remains in joyous memory from decades ago. In similar spirit, a dear mentor who warms my heart still as he approaches his 91st birthday. Your chosen persona here feels dishonoring to the notion of a "buddy," especially when I consider the particulars of two who have worn the name do well. So now, just as you gave some context in this thread for why you show up as you do, you have a better sense of why I occasionally push back. Part of my thing here is to be more willing to criticize exaggerating, self-certain, over-reaching, and/or mean-spirited posters who seek to score their points at the expense of the players. To me, criticizing the players in certain ways represents the difference between 'punching down' at what our head coaches have called "kids" and (if the term need be used) 'punching' sideways, often at bullying peers who can do better. Many who bully are considered better at dishing it out than taking it. Some seem genuinely surprised and a little hurt when they become the object of criticism after seeming to casually dole it out. I appreciate the polite humility of your request, and admit that it does humanize you. It might impact whether or how I reply to some of your Comments moving forward. You, as well, may appreciate the respectful attention given to your request, and make your own adjustments. We'll both see... In closing, the short form of what I've written draws from our nation's First Lady: "Be buddy." [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach