Swiftian satire must be attempted only by people actually named Jonathan
by, 08-12-2013 at 12:21 AM (631 Views)
In response to a forum reply that I felt crossed a boundary, where the writer questioned the courage of Andrew Albers, instead of just deleting the post I decided to try a bit of "see how you like it". Since it stirred up some controversy, I am posting here the private message I later sent:
Brock and I were both basically reacting to one sentence:
Albers could have at least had the balls to fight for it if he really wanted it.
Nothing else in your several posts was an issue for me at least.
And your choice of the word "balls", while also off-color and thus a mild problem, isn't the issue either; you could have said
Albers could have at least had the courage to fight for it if he really wanted it.
and it would still have been a problem.
Please review the Updated Comment Policy if you are unclear. Rule #1 is
1. Personal attacks or insults towards other commenters, the post author, journalists, teams, players, members of baseball organizations or agents. (You can be critical, but not personal.)
There is just no place in the forums at TD for a comment like yours about a player's courage.
Your reaction to my questionable choice of a "see how you like it when it is directed at you" response demonstrates that the advice I was given to just delete comments that harm the tone of any given thread may work best in the long run; it's not some omniscient power but simply a way to keep threads from degenerating. Maybe your response was in that same vein but I don't think so; you just seemed to not like it to have your own courage questioned or to have someone presume to know what goes on inside your head. Yet that's what you wanted to do regarding Albers' ninth inning.
Please instead accept the criticism in the spirit it was intended, to recognize when a comment you're about to post approaches an area where a moderator will need to step in. Most people manage to steer far clear, and mostly you do too I think.