FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Actually, I'm not positive they can, but they can edit others' posts (I've seen it done by both Ralph and April), so I assume that editing could also result in total elimination.

[Titanwatcher]

Apparently the point Greg was making was too subtle for some.  When a poster posts only to get a rise out of people (pretty clearly the intent of TAA), the most effective response is to not give them the satisfaction.  Ignoring a troll is hardly the same as 'censorship'!

BTW, as a Hall of Famer, Greg had the power to simply delete the post, which he did not do.  THAT would border on censorship (though it is not really the same thing), but he simply suggested the reasonable course for discouraging those who get their jollies by 'drive-by provocations'.

If you read my original post, it said to squelch a response to augies post sounded like censorship, i guess i was too subtle also I also did not know HOF had the ability to delete posts. I will admit I did miss the subtlness in augie's post.

[footballfan413]

Apparently the point Greg was making was too subtle for some.  When a poster posts only to get a rise out of people (pretty clearly the intent of TAA), the most effective response is to not give them the satisfaction.  Ignoring a troll is hardly the same as 'censorship'!

BTW, as a Hall of Famer, Greg had the power to simply delete the post, which he did not do.  THAT would border on censorship (though it is not really the same thing), but he simply suggested the reasonable course for discouraging those who get their jollies by 'drive-by provocations'.

It has been my observation as well that this is usually the best course of action to follow, IMHO.  As my mom always said, "it is no fun to throw a fit if nobody is watching or listening!"  I have always been impressed with the level of civility that you gentleman manage to maintain, for the most part, on this board. 

[Gregory Sager]

Apparently the point Greg was making was too subtle for some.  When a poster posts only to get a rise out of people (pretty clearly the intent of TAA), the most effective response is to not give them the satisfaction.  Ignoring a troll is hardly the same as 'censorship'!

BTW, as a Hall of Famer, Greg had the power to simply delete the post, which he did not do.  THAT would border on censorship (though it is not really the same thing), but he simply suggested the reasonable course for discouraging those who get their jollies by 'drive-by provocations'.

Exactly. Thanks, Chuck.

If you read my original post, it said to squelch a response to augies post sounded like censorship, i guess i was too subtle also I also did not know HOF had the ability to delete posts. I will admit I did miss the subtlness in augie's post.

Nobody ever said anything about squelching responses except for you, Titanwatcher. I didn't use my HOF editing power and I left TAA's post intact because I don't believe in suppressing other people's voices, obnoxious though they may be. Nor did I "squelch a response" by editing NCC_alum62's and football2007's replies to TAA, either. What I asked people to do was to ignore a poster whose intentions were clearly malicious. There's a difference between suppressing legitimate debate and ignoring a mean-spirited provocateur whose intentions in posting are to destroy a room's civility and goad other people into losing their temper.

You seem to be assuming that there was some sort of an attempt made by TAA to make a statement worth either supporting or refuting. But he made no such attempt at all. He was simply trying, as Chuck said, to get a rise out of people by insulting various coaches and programs. And that's not worthy of a response by anyone. If you respond to a troll, you only encourage him to hang around and spew forth more nastiness and ruin the tone of your message board. As footballfan413's mom said, it's no fun to throw a fit if nobody is watching or listening. If you ignore him, he'll tire of the game and take his drive-by provocations with him and scuttle back into his hole.

[Titanwatcher]

Apparently the point Greg was making was too subtle for some.  When a poster posts only to get a rise out of people (pretty clearly the intent of TAA), the most effective response is to not give them the satisfaction.  Ignoring a troll is hardly the same as 'censorship'!

BTW, as a Hall of Famer, Greg had the power to simply delete the post, which he did not do.  THAT would border on censorship (though it is not really the same thing), but he simply suggested the reasonable course for discouraging those who get their jollies by 'drive-by provocations'.

Exactly. Thanks, Chuck.

If you read my original post, it said to squelch a response to augies post sounded like censorship, i guess i was too subtle also I also did not know HOF had the ability to delete posts. I will admit I did miss the subtlness in augie's post.

Nobody ever said anything about squelching responses except for you, Titanwatcher. I didn't use my HOF editing power and I left TAA's post intact because I don't believe in suppressing other people's voices, obnoxious though they may be. Nor did I "squelch a response" by editing NCC_alum62's and football2007's replies to TAA, either. What I asked people to do was to ignore a poster whose intentions were clearly malicious. There's a difference between suppressing legitimate debate and ignoring a mean-spirited provocateur whose intentions in posting are to destroy a room's civility and goad other people into losing their temper.

You seem to be assuming that there was some sort of an attempt made by TAA to make a statement worth either supporting or refuting. But he made no such attempt at all. He was simply trying, as Chuck said, to get a rise out of people by insulting various coaches and programs. And that's not worthy of a response by anyone. If you respond to a troll, you only encourage him to hang around and spew forth more nastiness and ruin the tone of your message board. As footballfan413's mom said, it's no fun to throw a fit if nobody is watching or listening. If you ignore him, he'll tire of the game and take his drive-by provocations with him and scuttle back into his hole.

Apparently still too subtle for some. Dr. while you addresd one of my points there is stil one left. No matter, if you read what I have posted I am all for a civil and respectful room. what kind of doctor are you? medical, PHD?

[Gregory Sager]

Apparently still too subtle for some. Dr. while you addresd one of my points there is stil one left.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I addressed the only point that I see in your posts, which was that I was somehow interfering with this room's freedom of speech.

If you have another point to make, then by all means come out and make it. There's a difference between subtlety and obscurity, you know.

No matter, if you read what I have posted I am all for a civil and respectful room.

Good. Nobody's said otherwise.

what kind of doctor are you? medical, PHD?

I'm not a doctor of anything. Pat was kidding around.

[mr_b]

what kind of doctor are you? medical, PHD?

Would it make any difference, at any rate?

[Gregory Sager]

what kind of doctor are you? medical, PHD?

Would it make any difference, at any rate?

If it does, perhaps I'd better delete my earlier post before anyone sees it, and then replace it with a post declaring myself to have a Ph.D. in footballology.

[79jaybird]

Wow, some interesting and some "no brainer" posts recently.
True Augie Alum- you really think Elmhurst has been a "no show"?  Hmm, I guess 6-4 3 of the last 4 years is a no-show. OK  True Elmhurst in the past has had their troubles, but not recently and won't be the case here in 2007 either.
EC is scrimmaging Lakeland this year as has been discussed.  My question has been why doesn't EC drop IBC and take on Lakeland/CUW/UW-Oshkosh etc.  These are quality clubs that have played in the playoffs before.
I know EC/IBC likes the "neighborhood" combat and proximity plays a big part in why these two teams continue to play each other.  I just see that EC has srimmaged some of these schools- why not try to schedule a (for keeps) game against them?  Just my 2 cents on this one.

[Titanwatcher]

Apparently still too subtle for some. Dr. while you addresd one of my points there is stil one left.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I addressed the only point that I see in your posts, which was that I was somehow interfering with this room's freedom of speech.

Let me explain it for you, never said you interering,  re-read the post it says "seems". Unfortunately you took this as some kind of personal attack.

If you have another point to make, then by all means come out and make it. There's a difference between subtlety and obscurity, you know.

Refer to above. Apparently obscurity comes from the inability to fully read and understand.

Apparently still too subtle for some. Dr. while you addresd one of my points there is stil one left.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I addressed the only point that I see in your posts, which was that I was somehow interfering with this room's freedom of speech.

If you have another point to make, then by all means come out and make it. There's a difference between subtlety and obscurity, you know.

No matter, if you read what I have posted I am all for a civil and respectful room.

Good. Nobody's said otherwise.

what kind of doctor are you? medical, PHD?

I'm not a doctor of anything. Pat was kidding around.

as for the terse nature in your last post, I can only speculate where that comes from. This is a forum right? You stated your opinion on how to handle TAA post. I stated a different opinion on TAA and why 2007 could not get an answer to his question. As i have previously stated you appear to be long time contributor to these boards. I would have expected a different  approach and attitude from and "elder statesman"of this and many other boards contained here.

apparently you missed my attempt to diffuse the situation in the above post. sorry, I gues the smiley faces were too subtle again.

(This post was edited by GS for formatting purposes)

[Mr. Ypsi]

In this site's Preview, teams are ranked from 1-238 (conferences are also ranked - I didn't see a nice table, but they have the CCIW a solid, though unspectacular, 7th out of 26(?)).  To no one's surprise, the Mount is #1 (Principia is #238).

The CCIW:
13. Wheaton
18. NCC
20. Augie
58. Elmhurst
66. Carthage
120. Millikin
132. IWU
205. NPU

Since differences of a few slots are not very meaningful, they see the conference as 3 on top, then 2, then 2 more, then NPU (they DO view the Vikes as on the rise, but expect it to take a couple more years to translate into many wins).

I hope Pat, et.al., don't mind this 'teaser'.  If you want to know more, you'll have to shell out your $8.95 ($4.95 if you registered with a .edu email account)!

[Gregory Sager]

Let me explain it for you, never said you interering,  re-read the post it says "seems". Unfortunately you took this as some kind of personal attack.

No, I didn't. I haven't taken anything personally in this conversation. I can assure you that my attitude is completely dispassionate regarding your insinuations about my reply to TAA.

Refer to above. Apparently obscurity comes from the inability to fully read and understand.

No, obscurity comes from the inability to get one's point across with clarity. It's a "sender" word, not a "receiver" word.

I can assure you that as someone who has made his living as a professional writer and editor I can fully read and understand the written word quite well, thank you. Writing is a two-step means of communication; it requires a writer to convey information properly in order for the reader to have any chance at all to interpret the information properly. The primary burden to make yourself understood, therefore, is upon you as the writer. That is why I asked you to reiterate whatever it was that your second point was supposed to be.

Here's a helpful hint regarding getting your meaning across to a reader: When someone asks you to reiterate a point, simply go ahead and honor the request rather than insult him.

as for the terse nature in your last post, I can only speculate where that comes from.

Why would you wish to speculate about that? My brevity carried with it no ulterior meaning. Contrary to popular belief on d3sports.com, I can actually write a short post when the situation calls for one.

This is a forum right? You stated your opinion on how to handle TAA post. I stated a different opinion on TAA and why 2007 could not get an answer to his question. As i have previously stated you appear to be long time contributor to these boards. I would have expected a different  approach and attitude from and "elder statesman"of this and many other boards contained here.

This is a digression on my part from what is essentially your recap of this conversation, but I must add at this point that my position vis-a-vis ignoring trolls, as Pat and others proceeded to demonstrate, is not only a standard approach and attitude on these message boards and on the Internet in general (both among "elder statesmen" and not-so-elder statesmen) but is a commonplace within society as well.

apparently you missed my attempt to diffuse the situation in the above post. sorry, I gues the smiley faces were too subtle again.

Again, you failed to adequately convey your meaning. I had no idea from your 8/20 12:18 am reply -- "If you read my original post, it said to squelch a response to augies reply [sic] sounded like censorship, I guess I was too subtle also  " -- that you were attempting to defuse the situation. To me it appeared that you were lobbing a pair of veiled insults my way, one in implying that I hadn't read your original post properly before responding and another in attaching an eye-roll smiley to the words, "I guess I was too subtle also". An eye-roll smiley in that context is not an attempt to defuse the situation, in my estimation. It's an attempt to imply that the reader (me) is so thick that explaining oneself requires excessive patience and forbearance.

Smileys don't always connote innocence or light-heartedness. They're semiotic devices that are used as substitutes for the facial aspect of conversational discourse that gets lost when the written word is left by itself. And eye-rolling is by no means a disarming or even neutral gesture in every given conversation. In certain contexts, an eye-roll smiley can be a quite haughty response to someone (especially following a declaration that one's subtlety -- one's cleverness, in other words -- is beyond the ability of the reader to grasp), just as a real-life eye-roll can be. Believe me, I speak from firsthand experience on the matter of sending condescending eye-roll smileys on d3sports.com message boards. Your subsequent gibe about my "inability to fully read and understand" bears out my interpretation of your eye-roll smiley post.

In other words, while you may have thought that you were defusing the situation, instead you were coming across as being condescending towards me. Again, this is not a matter of subtlety. It's a matter of properly conveying one's intent and meaning in the written word.

[RedmenFB44]

Hey Everyone!!!

Longtime no talk for me. I have been it baseball season the past few months and now that my White Sox are out of it (they were out of it 2 months ago but I still had hope), I am ready for some football!

Carthage football is ready even though they are ranked #66 which seems very low to me but I know they had a tough season last year. They have a very good QB in O'Boyle. I like this kid a lot. I am going to have to do a little research and get some info from sources close to the team.

I missed all of you guys but I am back and ready for another GREAT CCIW BATTLE!!!

[NCC_alum62]

Let me explain it for you, never said you interering,  re-read the post it says "seems". Unfortunately you took this as some kind of personal attack.

No, I didn't. I haven't taken anything personally in this conversation. I can assure you that my attitude is completely dispassionate regarding your insinuations about my reply to TAA.

Refer to above. Apparently obscurity comes from the inability to fully read and understand.

No, obscurity comes from the inability to get one's point across with clarity. It's a "sender" word, not a "receiver" word.

I can assure you that as someone who has made his living as a professional writer and editor I can fully read and understand the written word quite well, thank you. Writing is a two-step means of communication; it requires a writer to convey information properly in order for the reader to have any chance at all to interpret the information properly. The primary burden to make yourself understood, therefore, is upon you as the writer. That is why I asked you to reiterate whatever it was that your second point was supposed to be.

Here's a helpful hint regarding getting your meaning across to a reader: When someone asks you to reiterate a point, simply go ahead and honor the request rather than insult him.

as for the terse nature in your last post, I can only speculate where that comes from.

Why would you wish to speculate about that? My brevity carried with it no ulterior meaning. Contrary to popular belief on d3sports.com, I can actually write a short post when the situation calls for one.

This is a forum right? You stated your opinion on how to handle TAA post. I stated a different opinion on TAA and why 2007 could not get an answer to his question. As i have previously stated you appear to be long time contributor to these boards. I would have expected a different  approach and attitude from and "elder statesman"of this and many other boards contained here.

This is a digression on my part from what is essentially your recap of this conversation, but I must add at this point that my position vis-a-vis ignoring trolls, as Pat and others proceeded to demonstrate, is not only a standard approach and attitude on these message boards and on the Internet in general (both among "elder statesmen" and not-so-elder statesmen) but is a commonplace within society as well.

apparently you missed my attempt to diffuse the situation in the above post. sorry, I gues the smiley faces were too subtle again.

Again, you failed to adequately convey your meaning. I had no idea from your 8/20 12:18 am reply -- "If you read my original post, it said to squelch a response to augies reply [sic] sounded like censorship, I guess I was too subtle also  " -- that you were attempting to defuse the situation. To me it appeared that you were lobbing a pair of veiled insults my way, one in implying that I hadn't read your original post properly before responding and another in attaching an eye-roll smiley to the words, "I guess I was too subtle also". An eye-roll smiley in that context is not an attempt to defuse the situation, in my estimation. It's an attempt to imply that the reader (me) is so thick that explaining oneself requires excessive patience and forbearance.

Smileys don't always connote innocence or light-heartedness. They're semiotic devices that are used as substitutes for the facial aspect of conversational discourse that gets lost when the written word is left by itself. And eye-rolling is by no means a disarming or even neutral gesture in every given conversation. In certain contexts, an eye-roll smiley can be a quite haughty response to someone (especially following a declaration that one's subtlety -- one's cleverness, in other words -- is beyond the ability of the reader to grasp), just as a real-life eye-roll can be. Believe me, I speak from firsthand experience on the matter of sending condescending eye-roll smileys on d3sports.com message boards. Your subsequent gibe about my "inability to fully read and understand" bears out my interpretation of your eye-roll smiley post.

In other words, while you may have thought that you were defusing the situation, instead you were coming across as being condescending towards me. Again, this is not a matter of subtlety. It's a matter of properly conveying one's intent and meaning in the written word.

Game, Set, and Match


Greg, I'm not going to lie, I dated and English major and she has nothing on your skills.  I salute you

[Comet 14]

Remind me to NEVER and I stress the word NEVER to get in to a verbal sparring match with Dr. Gregory Sager. I know your not a Real Doctor but neither wa Dr. J.