Master Index of Archived Threads


Bias

Bret Sabermetric May 17 2006 07:35 AM

Look, I admit, I'm biased. I search for things that could be interpreted negatively for the Mets and if I find some, I make sure to post about it. That's me. Now let's talk about you and your biases. What? You say you don't have any? What's that? Rooting for a team, and searching diligently for positive interpretations isn't bias, it's just being a fan? It's mere enjoyment? It's what this place is all about? Fans, rubbing elbows with their fellow fans, taking pleasure in breathing the same virtual air? Well, as the guy responsible for conceiving this place (the whole CPF, mind you, not the RLF where I now reside), let me tell you: the air was far from clean way back when. it fairly stunk of both excessive negativeity and excessive positivity. We had posters (on another site) who would gush and glow and wax ludicrous about the Mets, and we had posters whose entire existence from birth was built on mean-spirited and mindless tearing-down and naysaying, not only of the Mets but of their fellow posters, and they were proudly sexist, homophobic jingoists to boot. I sold my good friend Edgy on the concept of creating a place where none of that would be encouraged, not the goody-two-shoes, LGM crowd, nor the Fuck-your mother-with-a-rusty-dildo crowd. But then the Mets began finishing last, and several sensible people went a skosh too far to my tastes to the "Prosperity is just around the corner--in fact, it's already here!" philosophy, and what with one thing or another, I began correcting for their biases. Edgy took those corrections personally, and we've remained pretty sharply divided ever since, but the polarization has caused a lack of the neutrality I've often thought of as the ideal goal of a place like this: neutral in the sense that while we all follow the Mets closely, we try to keep our rooting interest from turning our posts into naked wishing. We're very clear on distinguishing when polling, for example, what we'd LIKE to happen from what we think WILL happen. Now, not so much. I realize mine is a minority position (the goal of neutrality, not the Met-hating nonsense) but I'd like to have a place more devoted to analysis of what happens, good and bad, than a place that tries to justify every disaster as "Part of this lovely game we all call 'life'." I recognize that comes across as hating the Mets, or being a buzzkill, or being some kind of dickhead/asshole/cuntface/etc. monster, but I guess I'm okay with that misconception. I'd rather be true to principles I try to obey (like 'Don't tell yourself lies on purposes') than court popularity.

MFS62 May 23 2006 09:45 AM

Careful, Bret. If you're going to start telling the emperor tha the's standing there butt nekked, and do it in a satiric manner, you might consider changing your screen name to Johnathan Swift. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the foibles of anything, especially an entity with the checkered history of decision-making like the Mets. And as you seem to forget, I have always supported your right to say those things. You're right. Everyone is biased, and each person views the world through a prism made up in part by that bias. And if your prism is vastly different that that of the majority, your journey can be quite Quixotic. (unintentional alliteration) But as you continue your quest for the truth, make sure you come across as the valliant knight and not the jackass he rode in on. Later

Johnny Dickshot May 23 2006 10:15 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 23 2006 10:30 AM

I don’t see a mad rush to justify every disaster but jeez louise above all this is a place for fans of the team who desire to see them to succeed. It wouldn’t exist without that bias. Maybe it helps to think of the CPF as a giant rowboat on the sea. While you may not get along with the oarsman sitting next to you, you know at least you need him to keep paddling in the same direction or you’ll sink or starve or get attacked by sharks or boned up the ass by pirates or whatever. Not for nothing, but while I understand what you’re trying to do, the practice of paddling the boat backward, or rather, throwing your oar in the water so you can criticize your fellow paddlers while getting a free ride isn’t gonna save anyone from a Vito Spadafore-style pirate-buggering. By the way, I spoke to the unnamed forumite who spoke to you personally recently, and that poster explained that the “real world example” of “grave bodily harm” wasn’t intended as a threat but as a means of forcing things into perspective. He told me, “I meant to convey the idea that if one of us went out for lunch today and on the way to the deli was run over by a bus, it’d sure be pathetic to have to recall our flattened friend as the guy who spent the last months and hours of his life either a) Reliving some stupid argument about Mike Piazza from three years ago, as right or wrong as it may have been; or b) Pretending that your adversary in said argument isn’t in the same room as you, as helpful that is for your sanity.” He added that he told both sides this, and that if both sides were so stubborn as to be unwilling to drop it, forgive and move on, that’d be an even sadder thing to consider while we scrubbed the mushy remains from the asphalt.

Elster88 May 23 2006 10:22 AM Re: Bias

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I realize mine is a minority position (the goal of neutrality, not the Met-hating nonsense) but I'd like to have a place more devoted to analysis of what happens, good and bad, than a place that tries to justify every disaster as "Part of this lovely game we all call 'life'." I recognize that comes across as hating the Mets, or being a buzzkill, or being some kind of dickhead/asshole/cuntface/etc. monster, but I guess I'm okay with that misconception. I'd rather be true to principles I try to obey (like 'Don't tell yourself lies on purposes') than court popularity. That sounds very nice. Personally, I don't think that all of the posts in question support this altruistic cause. For example, calling people who have a postive-Met bias as kool-aid-drinkers or footie-pajama-wearers or morons is not the same as promoting "a place more devoted to analysis of what happens". I've done more than my share of name-calling and stupid arguing, too, so you don't need to post all of your archives Bret. But I will point out that people tend to use words like "dickhead/asshole/cuntface/etc" when the same (or something similar) is done to them. They don't do so because someone has a negative Met bias.

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 02:48 PM Re: Bias

Elster88 wrote: [For example, calling people who have a postive-Met bias as kool-aid-drinkers or footie-pajama-wearers or morons is not the same as promoting "a place more devoted to analysis of what happens".. Silly examples, IMO. A "koolaid drinker" means something very specific, which many koolaid drinkers would proudly agree with: It means (in this case) a die-hard Met fan who9 prefers to believe (and believe in) his team rather than even consider seriously the possiblity that they're a bunch of jerks who care far less about winning than he (Mr. KoolAid) does. It's almost not an insult, except coming from someone who values loyalty below objectivity. I do. Maybe you don't. That's Kool But don't go pretending that when I use "koolaid drinker" to mean an excessively, even naively loyal Mets fan, that opens the gates for anyone to call me anything he likes Come back with "Cynic".--I'll fess up to that. Come back with "Sourpuss." But most of the time (I know I'm keeping the archives on this, so you're certainly freely to think I'm skewing this, although I'm not) when I come up with a criticism of the mets' style of play or management, a typical response maybe "Fuck you, Bret. Drop dead. Why you aren't banned I have no idea"--that's a valid response? It's really not my style to engage in abusive vitriol, at least not of the name-calling variety. It's just too easy to call for someone's banning, and to curse him out. (I except the Mets and Mets management from this rule of thumb, but even there nornallyI curse them out in the process of addressing some other issue.) . ] I've done more than my share of name-calling and stupid arguing, too, so you don't need to post all of your archives Bret. But I will point out that people tend to use words like "dickhead/asshole/cuntface/etc" when the same (or something similar) is done to them. They don't do so because someone has a negative Met bias. The "something similar" is what I have problems with. Most of my RLF ostracisms by the powers that be occur when I've called someone a "twit,' or the likes of that, which scarcely get noticed in the context of others' posts. Vic responds to a post by calling me an ass. KC responds to one by informing that I'm behaving like a dick. I don't mind that I've gotten under their skins: that's what I'm trying to do sometimes, but if youre going to express your anger, do it with a little substance, and throw in a little style once in a great while. That's not asking for much, is it? Welll, not from them--they're Met fans. They can say what they like, and you don't get offended by your pals. That's what I'm calling bias, Elster. There are other words for it, but they're not as nice words as 'bias."

KC May 23 2006 02:59 PM

Speaking only for myself, if you had/have so many god damn beefs with me you had plenty of times when you could have brought them up in person. In- stead you've waged a three year online mental war on this place, my feelings, and dragged it down almost to the point of it being closed a few weeks ago. Then when people reached out to you, you just turned it up two notches to the point of utter obnoxiousness. I'm not mad. I like you. Are you ever going to stop? What are you trying to ac- complish? If it's being a pain in the ass, you've made your point. Move on.

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 03:08 PM

I've got over a hundred e-mails to and from you in my "sent" box and my "saved" box--how can you even think that I refused to communicate with you privately? Almost all of my pubic commnets to you were in response to your public comments to me. Can you not see the relationship between "dishing it out" and "taking it"? As to "you've made your point. Move on", why not make a special RLF for the RLF? It's not enough that I'm griping in the privacy of this Forum, but it still bothers you here as well? Mother of God, ban me already, wouldja?

Vic Sage May 23 2006 03:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on May 23 2006 03:20 PM

to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson in "1776"... You're an ass, whether i say so or not. So i might as well say so. You don't think that "Koolaid drinker" is pejorative? Well i sure do. what does it imply? well, lets see. It is my understanding that the phrase "drank the Koolaid" originated as a reference to the Jonestown cult, where Jim Jones' followers, in an act of blind fanaticism, drank poisoned Koolaid (and fed it to their children), at the order of their cult leader. to say that someone "drinks the Koolaid", then, is to imply that the person suffers from a level of blind fanatical loyalty or commitment to a certain idea (or person, group, etc) such that they would kill themselves (actually or metaphorically) for it. when you say i drink the Koolaid, thats not a neutral observation. Thats saying i'm a moron who stands by whatever the Mets do or say, and i'm incapable of rational thought about them. By differentiating between us by saying I drink the Koolaid (and you don't) is to say that i'm not rational and you are. Your smart and I'm an idiot. You're superior and I'm inferior, etc etc That you think an appropriate response to being labeled as such is to call you a "sourpuss" or "cynic" shows how little you realize the extent of your insult.

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 03:12 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I don’t see a mad rush to justify every disaster but jeez louise above all this is a place for fans of the team who desire to see them to succeed. It wouldn’t exist without that bias. Maybe it helps to think of the CPF as a giant rowboat on the sea. While you may not get along with the oarsman sitting next to you, you know at least you need him to keep paddling in the same direction or you’ll sink or starve or get attacked by sharks or boned up the ass by pirates or whatever. Not for nothing, but while I understand what you’re trying to do, the practice of paddling the boat backward, or rather, throwing your oar in the water so you can criticize your fellow paddlers while getting a free ride isn’t gonna save anyone from a Vito Spadafore-style pirate-buggering. By the way, I spoke to the unnamed forumite who spoke to you personally recently, and that poster explained that the “real world example” of “grave bodily harm” wasn’t intended as a threat but as a means of forcing things into perspective. He told me, “I meant to convey the idea that if one of us went out for lunch today and on the way to the deli was run over by a bus, it’d sure be pathetic to have to recall our flattened friend as the guy who spent the last months and hours of his life either a) Reliving some stupid argument about Mike Piazza from three years ago, as right or wrong as it may have been; or b) Pretending that your adversary in said argument isn’t in the same room as you, as helpful that is for your sanity.” He added that he told both sides this, and that if both sides were so stubborn as to be unwilling to drop it, forgive and move on, that’d be an even sadder thing to consider while we scrubbed the mushy remains from the asphalt. JD--Never crossed my mind that the unnamed forumite was even implying a personal threat. It's just that I wrote it up in a clumsy way that someone might have read that into it, but I know (and I'm sure he knows) that the conversation from his end was friendly, helpful, kind, considerate, thoughtful, well-intended and (from my end) was taken as nothing other than that. Tell your frend, if you run into him, that I appreciated it and welcome further such encounters anytime.

KC May 23 2006 03:18 PM

Bret, why can't you just stop? Stop today, stop tomorrow ... just stop. Archiving emails between us and not opening your mouth a quarter inch about stuff that's bothering on this forum as recently as January 2006 (the last time we saw each other IN PERSON) is not the same thing. The whole thing is just so ridiculous, I can't believe sometimes I'm part of it.

KC May 23 2006 03:29 PM

Also, check your email archives from a couple of years ago when I tried to get you and Edge to bury the hatchet. No instead you've made a hobby out of playing games and pretending that you have some cross to bear because the forum you "conceived" isn't exactly the way you want it to be. Christ, even knowing that my wife-to-be was getting eighteen rounds of chemo you didn't miss a freakin' beat. You've worn me out, I'm waving the white flag. OE: changed is getting to was getting

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 04:45 PM

KC wrote: the forum you "conceived" isn't exactly the way you want it to be. Yeah, like my partner cutting me dead, tiny shit like that. He can do that. But that frees me to be inconsiderate of his tender feelings when I'm so inclined. I wish you'd have put a little effort into explaining to him why treating me like a spurned girlfriend in 9th grade wasn't a productive way to go. I'm sorry I had to put all this energy into making that abundantly clear. And to get back to the bias part, I have no doubt that if I had behaved liked him, and he had behaved like me, and I was all LGM and he was pissed off at the Mets, you'd be crawling all up and down his ass putting the deal on him. This really has very little to do with you and me (much less me and K!), and less to do with how we feel about each other. Edgy solved his little problem with me by making me into the Forum pariah, so now I'm adjusting to that role, and getting to discover its benefits. Prolly bettter to have included me, but that ship has long sailed, and there are things I've gotten to like about being a disagreeable, sarcastic, curmudgeonly pointer-out of dumb shit written on the CPF, foolish predictions made, bad deals condoned, that I might have laid off from in my pre-pariah days. You know how that goes, "Ah, what the hell, leave him alone, he's your friend and he fucked up--don't point it out to everyone." But when he's made it plain that he wants no part of me or my friendship, that really doesn't apply anymore, does it? So a whole new set of rules apply, and if this place is a little worse for it, I'm not taking the blame. The abuse, yes. I've gotten used to that. But this isn't on me. Sorry.

Elster88 May 23 2006 05:01 PM

I agree with Vic regarding what "kool-aid drinker" implies.

Bret Sabermetric May 23 2006 05:09 PM

Vic Sage wrote: By differentiating between us by saying I drink the Koolaid (and you don't) is to say that i'm not rational and you are. Your smart and I'm an idiot. Well, I'm smart enough to use apostrophes correctly. Yes, it's an overstatement, No, I don't think you would feed your kids poisoned Kool-aid just because Fred Wilpon told you to. To be quite this literal-minded is to be an ass quite deliberately. No matter how you spin it, and no matter how much cheering (or braying) you hear from your fan club here, the simple fact remains that you often choose to believe the explanations coming from the Mets rather than believe your own good sense, your experience in the business world, what you read in the newspaper columns, or simple logic, while I rank the Mets' PR, Spin and Bullshit factory way, way, way down on my list (right underneath Santa Claus and George Bush, in fact) of reliable sources of information. That is all I believe "Koolaid drinkers" to imply--you swallow this crap happily and ask for more, while I say "No, thanks, I'm full." Tell me, isn't it true that you think I'm pretty stupid to think what I think? You don't need to answer that. Your characterizations of me ("ass" will do for now) are entirely responsive to my rhetorical question. The difference being that, while you freely concede that you are far more accepting of the Mets' PR, S and BS factory than I am, you won't concede that it doesn't make you far more gullible than I, and that therefore I'm calling you stupid. I'm calling you exactly what you are, and you think that's an insult. But you admit to being gullible. You define yourselves by your gullibility. v You brag that your faith in Piazza's enduring skill will be borne out by the results, and when the results come in, you're still mad at me for some reason. You endorse shit-eating trades by saying "Well, Omar will churn this crap in another deal and he'll come out golden" and when he doesn't, you dish out a few insults to me for having been angry about the stupid deal in the first place. LGM! Fuck that. I feel better about rooting for the Knicks at this point. Go Freddy Weis, I think he'll turn this franchise around very soon. Actually, if I really thought that, wouldn't I be some kind of gullible schmuck? If I was proud of continuing to have faith in Freddy Weis, and believed that Scott Layden would someday be justified, wouldn't I be a trusting fool? Wouldn't you be entirely correct to make fun of me, perhaps even refer to my enduring faith as "Koolaid drinking" and rightly criticize me for preaching patience with Knicks' management over the years? I choose to apply some of those principles to the Mets and to Mets fans, and if they want to argue why I'm wrong, that's fine. That's why I'm here. But you don't want to argue about the Mets with me. You want to tell me what an ass I am for thinking what I think. OK, I admit--I'm a dick, an asshole, an utter scumbag. Agreed. Now argue baseball. I give you ten minutes before you're back to "Sal, what an ass you are." And what does that tell you about yourself?

metsmarathon May 23 2006 09:09 PM

what's the antithesis of a kool-aid drinking metapologist? i mean, really, that's all that you are at this point. you're drinking your own kool aid. its not teh mets' kool aid. its the anti-mets kool aid. it doesnt make you any more objective then "us" its about time you stopped pretending. in your mind, we lap up all that the mets front office presents to us (despite all the discussions that go on around here that argue both sides). in reality, all you do is reject all that the mes front office presents, out of hand. how are you any different from "us"?

Bret Sabermetric May 24 2006 06:58 AM

That's a little silly. I'm striving (don't always make it but I try) to figure out what's true, even if the truth is complimentary (or not) to the Mets and their image. I like plenty of Mets, for example. I like Heilman, think it's rotten that he's not given more of a chance as a starter. I like Reyes, hope he breaks through with some big-time OBP. Love Wright, think he's got a huge, exciting future that I can't wait to see. I hope Soler makes it, though I recognize how rare it is to make the bigs w/o much minor league experience. IOW, I root. It's just that I'm selective about who I root for. I root when reason persuades me to root. I root when things I'd like to see are also things that have a reasonable scenario for coming true. I even believe the Mets when they say things that seem accurate to me. Koolaid drinkers, OTOH, (and I use this next word carefully) proudly root for all sorts of shit that no reasonable person thinks is very likely to happen. They believe WWSB's hostile and defensive explanations of his foolish moves, or at least they give me a hard time for correctly labelling them transparant and ignorant bullshit. They cite absurd nonsense like WWSB's reluctance to shitcan Lima (up to his actual release, WWSB was publically claiming that Lima's pitching was fairly good) as a reason to think that Lima can pitch, or worse they bought Omar's BS before the season that Lima's record was a pretty good indication he could step into a starting role on a contending team. Now I understand why Omar claimed that--he, after all, had just traded off two pretty good back of the rotation starters, so what's he going to claim? "I should be fired for denuding the Mets' rotation without a clue as to how we're going to excavate a 4th or 5th or 6th or 7th starter?" No, of course he buys his weak BS reasoning, at least in public. But does that obligate you to buy it? You should be howling for Omar's hide. THE MAN IS TELLING YOU LIES, FOOLISH, SELF-SERVING BS WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, and you're opining "Sure hope he's right 'bout, that, Jethro." Why? Because you're stupid? No, I think it's got to be the Koolaid talking. You're refusing to flick the "ON" switch to your brain, deliberately, on purpose, because that's not what a loyal Mets fan does. Does that help you understand the difference? I try to examine the situation, you try not to.

Johnny Dickshot May 24 2006 01:03 PM

]Does that help you understand the difference? I try to examine the situation, you try not to. Bullshit.

Vic Sage May 24 2006 01:27 PM

You were right and I was wrong about the projection of Piazza's performance that season. I acknowledged such at the time, and paid you off on our bet, over a lunch we shared (our last, i can assure you). That we teased each other constantly over the issue, and over many other issues over the years, does not have anything to do with the growing irritation i have for you, or you for me. Now here is why i reject your "koolaid drinker" label: I constantly criticize WWSB. In fact, i COINED THE TERM. But, unlike you, i think he's too stupid to make decisions based on the intricate "CYA/PR impact" philosophy you credit him with. I've blamed Freddy for not spending to sign Vlad and others, and for my feeling that he forced certain trades for budgetary reasons, when he's got one of the most valuable sports franchises on the planet and a new sports network. But i do recognize he's got the biggest payroll in the NL, and has profit as his first priority. The Mets are not a 501(c)3 corporation run as a public trust for my benefit. This doesn't make Freddy evil, necessarily. I don't hold him to a higher standard than any other owner in baseball. They're all capitalists acting out of self-interest, and the damage they do to fandom is inherent in that system. I've criticized Omar for moves he made i didn't like, and for an apparent rejection of sabrmetric insights and an over-reliance (IMO) on the good ole boy scouting network. I also credit him for moves that he made that i DID like, regardless of the fact that "anybody can sign FAs with that kind of money". It is true that i won't criticize him for moves he did NOT make, nor will i impugn evil motives to either he or Wilpon, or anybody else, without evidence of such. I put no particular stock in the organization's statements, to the extent they go beyond factual reportage (who is being moved, promoted, released, etc). They can say things that I think are stupid, or they can say things i think are smart, and i'll criticize or applaud them accordingly, but I don't demonize them for misleading me. First, because it is difficult to know whether they're misleading me intentonally or not, and to what end if they are. and secondly, because they are not my elected officials and owe me nothing more than as good an effort as possible to win as many games as possible. You on the other hand, went from some Mets PR statement or quote, made one March day a few years ago, about the organization's view of David Wright's un-readiness to be a major-leaguer, to a damnation of the organization as evil, lying CYA shitweazels for their subsequent decision to bring him up after he tore thru AA. The notion that they changed their mind, that circumstances changed, or that they made a mistake, is not an acceptable explanation for you, in this or any other Mets decision... you choose to impute evil motives and find a cabbal of conspirators scuttling through the shadowed corridors of Shea Stadium, busily conceiving plots to bilk poor stupid me. Since i don't reach the same self-evident conclusions you do, i'm obviously an idiot (who doesn't know how to use apostrophes correctly), and since you're just trying to help me by pointing it out, I have unfairly overracted by calling you an ass. Yes, Steve, I know quite well that you're not accusing me of feeding poisoned Kool-Aid to babies. And you know that i know it, so to throw that out there is a red herring. But what you are saying when you label me a "KoolAid Drinker", and what you've just said again more clearly in your prior post, is that you think I accept as fact everything the Mets say, cheer for them proudly without recognizing their errors, and have eschewed rational thought with regard to analysing them. In short, you are calling me a mindless fanatic who needs to be grateful for the corrective benificence of your superior logic. That you would do so, and do so repeatedly, under the pretext that you are only "talking baseball" and either (1) do not understand that its a monumental insult to me, or (2) do not CARE that you've insulted me because somehow you feel jusified in it, just confirms what a complete ass you've become in living out your self-fulfilling role as CPF pariah. I'm sorry that I missed your 10-minute limit for calling you an ass. If i'd seen your post sooner, i'm sure i could've gotten in under the wire. And you know what that tells me about myself? That i have completely and utterly run out of whatever remaining patience i had for your smug condescension, delusional sense of superiority and self-pitying martyrdom. I'm done with the RLF now. You can have it back and continue to bellow out your bilious sound and fury to your heart's content. It signifies nothing but your flailing about in a total void.

Bret Sabermetric May 24 2006 02:56 PM

Excellent response. Who's "Steve"? The thing I really don't get about you and JD and some others is that I don't even think of you as Koolaid drinkers, really. Sometimes you might partake of the pitcher (I can't promise you won't find a post where I've said as much) but you two (and many on the CPF) are not what I'd call real swillers of Koolaid because, like me, you do try sincerely to distinguish between the Mets' often-absurd BS and the way things really are. You're both a little more trusting than I am (so's a rattlesnake), but you're by no means in the first ranks of gullible mouthbreathers on this fine site. So I'm a bit unclear as to why you seem so personally worked up here, except that you assume when I refer to Koolaid swilling mouthbreathing morons I must mean you specifically, when I don't. It's easy to get misunderstood, but no one who calls himself a writer should get misunderstood as often as I do, so I'll take some of the hit for my lack of clarity. Funny thing is that the head of the Koolaid drinkers is, I think, not terribly offended by the label. I've got one of the friendliest relationships to this day with a CPFer who cheerfully and openly admits that he doesn't care much about the W/L record, he loves rooting for his team and thinking well of them despite their alleged incompentence, and pledges himself to continue feeling this unswerving loyalty through thick and thin, a stance I utterly reject for myself. But we get along fine, and are collaborating on a book even as we speak. Don't get me wrong, there are idiots here, but "Koolaid swillers" doesn't mean "idiots" and there are idiots here who aren't among the staunchest Koolaid drinkers. Why not wait until I've insulted you personally before assuming that I mean you when I characterize some CPFers? I appreciate your cheerful admission about the Piazza stuff, Vic, honest I do. But do you realize that that the Koolaid Swiller in Chief on this fine site, who instigated the bet (but lacked the stones to make it), chose to stop acknowledging me in lieu of any such admission that maybe I wasn't such an evil-doer who gets entertainment by "loudly saying hostile things that are clearly untrue when measured by any sound elementary logic"--I think that was how he expressed his view of me, just before he stopped talking to me. (The "hostile things" were my statistical postings about Piazza.) No, you don't give a shit about that, nor should you. But if I'm to be characterized as a terrible person because I committed the crime of correctly doubting Piazza's future contributions, well, I have to ask to be allowed to characterize the person who made that jusgment of me as too blindly, gullibly optimistic for my taste and a nasty Koolaid-drinking asshole to boot. If I call him and his ilk "Koolaid drinkers" there's no need for you or JD or mm or CF or many others who I don't necessarily lump in with him, and his boorish way of expressing disagreemen, to inveigh against me. But neither can I force you guys to join me at lunch, or to continue reading my posts in the future. Pity me.