needmoreair wrote:
Back to the point; I'm not implying a thing in the least. The decision of the RD has nothing to do with it. As I have painstakingly repeated ad nauseum, my only issue with this entire thread/incident is the ensuing witchhunt created by a blogger and the bandwagon that so many jumped on without evidence. You're not on my side? Do you even know what my side is? Maybe you do, but I'm wondering... And if we go by the petty name-calling on the last few pages it's obvious there are a number of posters on this thread have no idea what my side is despite me spelling it out multiple times in multiple places. I have never, ever condoned any violence or malicious behavior and if you were bothered to look through this thread you could see that for yourself.
You're discussing demand for the video, I'm discussing the relentless attacks on this guy sans video. Maybe the video will prove these attacks were warranted, but the fact that they happened to such an extent prior to said video is primarily the part I have an issue with. Nothing the RD has done or said makes any sort of difference whatsoever to said issue. So no, I won't just "suck it up and move along" because it has nothing to do with anything. And my expressing interest in the video has nothing to do with respect or disrespect in any way whatsoever.
I've found a list of... what? Where? And I do what?
I didn't bring up fallacies and debating protocols. Someone else did. If you're going to continue to respond to my posts please do so in an informed manner. Just making up assertions shows a lack of class and is distasteful and tacky. Since you seem concerned with those things...
And I haven't called any posters in this thread a name. Read through my posts. You'll note that any name-calling in my post has been made by the person I'm replying to. Like I said, please respond to my posts in an informed manner and don't make things up. It's terribly distasteful.
Edit: I did suggest a poster was a high-school dropout. Ugh. My mistake.
There's certainly plenty of unnecessary name-calling to be shared, that's for sure, and I apologise for you being the person who caught the back side of it from me. I know you're not the only offender; I have read the entire thread.
Calling my post an "appeal to authority" is a direct reference to a use of a rhetological fallacy, and in this case incorrectly. If you would like me to go into why, I will - but I think it's beside the point. (In case you're interested, here's a fantastic chart:
http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/...cal_fallacies_EN.png ... and I mean that with absolutely no malice, I'm just a geek about these things!)
Your insistence that a response is unjustified without the video is what's giving me grief. The RD has made a judgement call based on the available evidence and also explained the circumstances surrounding the event, which has resulted in a DQ of this man for unsportsmanlike conduct. Do we have the right to condemn a man for an offence for which he was DQ'd? It depends if we trust the RD to make a good, reasonable decision. If we do (and my understanding is that Richard Izzo is pretty well thought of around these parts), then it is disrespectful to imply that by viewing the video ourselves, we can make a better decision than the RD already did.
I suspect you and I differ in that opinion.
Does the ST community tend to jump in hard and early? Yes. Does that mean it's unjustified? Not necessarily. This is not a case of "innocent until proven guilty" - he had already been deemed guilty and disqualified. In order for the DQ to have taken place, the guy engaged in some pretty unsportsmanlike conduct. Whether he punched a woman, tripped a dude, or ripped the arm off a baby... Does the degree of physical battery change anything? Maybe it does - there are other people arguing about why this is cause for a DQ on the run but contact on the swim is considered inevitable and acceptable. I honestly don't know that answer.
I think that you and I agree that the vilification was swift and unrelenting. From the way I'm reading your posts, I think you're trying to justify the level of vilification by requesting the video, whereas I am making no attempt to address the level of vilification but I am arguing the necessity of posting the video because I don't understand what it will change or what good it will do. Is that a fair representation?
I don't disagree with you that the tarring and feathering of this guy may have been excessive and/or premature. We're debating the posting of the video for entirely different reasons... and we probably should stop, because we're talking at cross purposes.
Burnt Toast - I thought the video was tied to the blog post prior to it being taken down, but I double-checked and am willing to concede that I misremembered that and it was two pictures that were removed. My bad.
