Actually, the one thing I cared about was in that first paragraph and, even as you say you agree with the first sentence it does not appear that you get my drift. The following explanation is one of protocol meant for a general audience.
When one makes a claim that could be challenged it’s up to the claimant, not the challenger, to provide the evidence. That’s the way it works in the scientific community, that’s the way it works in the courtroom, unfortunately it has not always worked that way in politics or media.
If one thinks their claim is so obvious it would not get challenged, but still does, the responsibility does not change, it’s up to the claimant to provide the evidence. This is even more important in human matters when the charge is a negative charge, when “innocent until proven guilty” kicks in. In this case the presumption would be most UConn fans would have a positive reaction involving UConn players or prospects, thus a claim that most are negative warrants the burden of proof, not a challenge to that claim.
I only read through five pages, up until your reference point, so if everything after that was negative it was omitted from my analysis but, even then, it’s up to you to prove the negative reflection on UConn fans. For those first five pages, and including roster size issues as a pure negative, by my count there were twice as many positive posters as negative ones, with you being the last to enter the fray, and more than twice as many positive posts. Yet my real concern has nothing to do with UConn. It is that we have a society where politicians and media make negative/damaging claims, provide an echo chamber for each other to those claims as the “evidence,” and then say it’s up to doubters to prove them wrong.
