I am much less sympathetic than you, bullpen. I would just rather not see those posts of people who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with any semblance of basic grammar rules. I cannot recall even ever seeing a well-thought out response from such a person. Those people provide the kind of "insights" that kurtbusch above provided. It doesn't matter why it is he/she has written in that fashion -- what matters is that he/she added nothing of substance to the discussion.
I disagree. Here's my interpretation of kurtbusch's comments (in short... I hope) starting at the top: 1. He refutes a comment about Jim Rome (fair). He proposes a solution to the bump draft issue at hand (smaller fuel cells -- insightful). Then he responded with ire to a comment by CountDracula that was apparently so offensive it isn't even there anymore (could cut down on the insults, but not terribly out of line) 2. He suggests that someone like Macbrown who only follows the Chase probably doesn't enjoy the sport for all its subtle nuances and isn't really in a position to be making judgments on it (fair). 3 & 4. KC refutes Chico's claim that you cannot make qualitative assessments of a person's fandom. His argument is that there certainly ARE different kinds of fans, the extremes of which are fanatics, who absorb everything they can about a sport, and casual fans who watch from time-to-time and may check out the standings on occassion, but who may not have a real depth of knowledge of the sport. I think he and Chico both misunderstood each other, but the argument MIGHT have been an interesting one if anyone had bothered to pick it up. Of course, then BullpenPro comes along and just derails the whole thread. I think if KC toned down his personal assaults and kept his arguments on the point and not the person, he seems to have some insightful thoughts on NASCAR (a sport of which I admittedly know nothing, nada, zip). If you ask me, it's BullpenPro we should be going after, not KC, for his verbose diatribes that are way off topic.
I read all of those posts as flying off the handle and throwing insults. Excerpt from first post: jim rome doesn't say ban the sport dumbaasssss.another so called clone who doesn't understands romies rheteric. I didn't get past the first two sentences, both of which threw insults. The second post: mackbrown you can't be a fan only when the chase comes around.so your not a fan,and if you think going fast and making left turns is all it's about ,well who's the IDIOT.to little competition?now i know how much you know about nascar. Now, his second post singles mackbrown out for insult -- calling him an idiot and telling him that he knows nothing about NASCAR. don't tell me thier ain't no true fans how would you no chicostick.same goes for you jose Here, some names of posters are bastardized, presumably as an insult. theres true and fair weather fans such as yourself He calls someone a fair weather fan. Presumably, once again, to insult the poster. That is exactly the point about communicating effectively. We got two entirely different messages out of his post because he did not effectively get his point across in writing. You are reading into his posts to try to figure out his point, but we really shouldn't have to do that. If he has a point, he needs to say it clearly and without insults. Otherwise, I see no problem with someone pointing out his complete lack of writing skills. It is hardly the case of nitpicking a couple of misspellings. He uses no capitalization. He doesn't use spaces between sentences. And, if that isn't bad enough, each and every post contains an insult. I think SpoFi would be better off without such posters.
Let me just say this, and then I promise to shut up: I think SpoFi would be better off without such posters. In truth, I agree. I was playing a bit of devil's advocate with KC's comments. I acknowledged in my synopsis that KC undermines his points with excessive personal abuse, and I don't like it either. The problem we both have, though, is his attitude more than his grammar, and if we're going to call him out on it, let's call him out on just that. Going after his writing skills when we dislike his intentions makes no sense, and sends a bad message to those who have flawed skills but better intentions (if, in fact, they exist -- perhaps we can agree to disagree on that point -- but you may find some of them if you look around).
If you find some of those posters, please let me know. I generally skip over the posts lacking the basic skills, so I could conceivably miss something brilliant.
I just have to say Tony Stewart is a little baby. He says one thing is bad then goes out on the track and does it. If the man really cared do you think he'd be out there spinning people out? I don't think so.
